[ Page 101 ]

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Thank you Mr. Speaker. The Premier and I, you'll notice, are wearing white carnations today. This is to mark a very special occasion. We have the first group of high school students visiting this new legislative assembly, this new Parliament, under this new government. I think it's fitting that they come from Lake Cowichan, and they sent the flowers to the Premier and I, and on behalf of the Premier I want to thank them and I want you to welcome them to this assembly.

Introduction of bills.

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

AN ACT RESPECTING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN

MR. G. B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey) : I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled An Act Respecting Proceedings Against The Crown.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be introduced and now read for the first time.

Motion approved.

MR. GARDOM: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ACT

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled Guaranteed Minimum Income Act.

Leave granted.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL HISTORIC SITE GRANT ACT

MRS. P.J. JORDAN~(North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled, the Christ Church Cathedral Historic Site Grant Act.

Leave granted.

[ Page 102 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

RECREATION FACILITIES GRANT ACT

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled the Recreation Facilities Grant Act.

Leave granted.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm pleased to have your support on that one. Your wife's for it, too. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

MRS. JORDAN: If you'll permit me your wife also favours this Act, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm neutral.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 8, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The principle of this bill is basically to cancel the amendment that was brought in last spring. The bill here requires a two-thirds vote of council to change the entry into a land use contract or to change zoning under municipal bylaws.

Now you will recall, those that were here last year, the extensive debates that took place regarding this section in Bill No. 77, last spring and I don't intend to repeat the statements that were made at that time. But, I would point out that it is our opinion that some unfortunate changes in zoning and unfortunate development have and can take place and, although the two-thirds vote may not change this, at least I think it requires a little more thought for the councils to change the existing bylaws.

I therefore move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver Howe-Sound.

[ Page 103 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We intend to support this bill and second reading.

I am pleased that the Hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs has seen fit to follow the distinguished arguments presented in debate not long ago.

It's a sorry thing when legislation which has been so long-standing on the books has changed but it's refreshing. There is, however, one aspect of the change made at the last session which still may present a problem. I would like to inquire whether or not the Hon. Minister, in closing the debate, would indicate what he or his department intends to do in the case of those municipal councils which are small in number and which often result in, not a two-thirds majority requirement, but indeed sometimes 80 per cent. This also arises in instances when due to illness, necessary absence from the duties of an alderman or from death it is indeed sometimes 100 per cent of the vote that is required. I know this doesn't cause difficulty in the majority of municipal governments, but, nonetheless, it can be significant in those municipalities which have small numbers on their councils.

I would hope that the Minister would indicate how this difficulty might be overcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, the official Opposition support this amendment. I might say, as far as a member of the last House was concerned, that I voted with the Opposition when this change took place. I was opposed to it at that time. I'm glad to see now that it's going back to two-thirds and we support the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, I rise to support the bill to amend the Municipal Act.

I see this amendment as very necessary and very, very urgent. Zoning changes in my area are a major issue. They're a major issue in fact in the entire Lower Mainland.

We see farm land rapidly disappearing, changing into industrial lands and into residential lands. There's only so much land available in the Lower Mainland and we've certainly got to make the best use of it.

The results now are that large tracts of land in my area are held by large development companies, companies that are sometimes registered in other parts of the world. These people have really only one interest and that is making a profit on the land and the zoning changes that they can bring about.

As a matter of fact I recently looked at a zoning map of Delta and I see that very, very little farmland is today owned by the farmer which places a very, very dangerous situation before the entire Lower Mainland.

Far too often these development companies become involved in civic elections and it's only necessary for them to change one alderman sometimes and they end up with changing the zoning of the area. The result is that they get things the way they want it and the interest of the community is forgotten.

In my area, for instance, I see one large farm, 600 acres, that's presently owned by a foreign company that's interested in high-density development. If they were to be successful in getting the council to change that, we would create problems in traffic, in schooling, in parks and in all the other services that are hinged in the community. It seems that when the change was made in the Municipal Act earlier this year it was a concession to these types of developers. It is a concession we must reverse and we must reverse it right now. To me it's a real emergency that we remove it and I know that the Union of B.C. Municipalities endorses the position that's being taken here today.

I know there are also a number of other problems facing the Municipal Act. I'm pleased when I see that the Minister has invited all groups to

[ Page 104 ]

present their ideas, their views and that there's going to be a thorough study of the Municipal Act. I'm sure that there'll be a great many presentations made.

I hope that the kind of study that is carried out will end up being beneficial to the whole community. There's a great field to cover there.

In the meantime we must support this amendment to change this section immediately.

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

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, we shall also support this bill.

I congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) for moving so promptly in this regard. And I congratulate the government for moving to correct something which was undertaken just a few months ago without one single request from the Union of B.C. Municipalities or from any particular municipality in this province.

Perhaps the most important function given to local government in this province today is control of land use. And we are happy to see the Minister move so quickly in this connection.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the sentiments expressed by those Hon. Members that spoke and I appreciate their remarks. I would like to mention to the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) that we had considered the problems that this amendment will make in the small councils. We had considered the point of having it read two-thirds of those present but then we realized that we might be walking into that hide-and-seek legislation where, when someone is out for a drink of water, you call the bylaw. So, you know, if there is any sound way we can avoid this…. I realize the problem, especially in the villages where the numbers are smaller. But I really haven't been able to think of any way to get around that particular problem and if you have any suggestions in regard to that certainly we'd be happy to have them.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, certainly. This can be dealt with in committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 8 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committee at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No. 5.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MEDIATION COMMISSION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 5, An Act to Amend the Mediation Commission Act. The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, in moving second reading of Bill No. 5, An Act to Amend the Mediation Commission Act, perhaps I might be allowed to digress momentarily to acknowledge your election to the Speaker of the House and compliment you upon it.

[ Page 105 ]

MR. SPEAKER: It's the only digression I'll allow.

HON. MR. KING: I had hoped perhaps that I might comment how nice it is to see some of my friends across the House.

I recall a particular voice from the past admonishing me that I would be a one-timer. It's nice to be back. I don't intend, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that I've become a two-timer. I'll leave that distinction to the former administration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the bill that we present for second reading is one which has the purpose of diffusing and bringing into a better framework, a better structure, the labour relations climate in the province. I think that it's generally acknowledged today that industrial relations in the province had reached an all-time low last year.

I think similarly, Mr. Speaker, that I have indicated to the public in a quite adequate way that this is but an initial step — an interim measure — that is necessary to bring about a degree of cooperation between labour and management, the public and interested parties, pending an overall review of the labour legislation which presently exists on the statute books of this province.

So the purpose here as I indicated at the outset, Mr. Speaker, is simply an interim measure. We changed the name of the Mediation Commission Act to the Mediation Services Act. I think it's one which indicates a service rather than an arbitrary authority.

It amends the Act further by removing sections 18 and 19 which were the compulsory measures which apparently our predecessors thought could bring industrial peace to this province, but in fact resulted in chaos. So I think this was an essential step to restore a climate of good relationship between labour and management.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that during the past few days we've had assurances from the Opposition parties that they are full of good spirit and cooperation for the new administration. I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there's really no more sensitive area in the province today than the labour management climate that exists.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if these protestations from the opposition are sincere then we will receive an expeditious degree of support in getting this bill through the House so that we can get on with the task of conducting hearings and taking the parties into our confidence and letting them have a say in the type of structure that we develop in the future. I recommend the bill for second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, we're discussing the principle of Bill No. 5, An Act to Amend the Mediation Commission Act.

I want to say this. That this is the most ill-conceived and ill prepared piece of legislation to be presented by the new government in its first session.

It's very difficult to believe the lack of preparation that has been put forward in this legislation. This is the worst piece of legislation introduced by the new Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) of that new socialist administration.

It's quite obvious to me that he lacks the knowledge of the particular sections that have been added and deleted in this particular amendment.

He refused to even discuss it when he introduced it in the Legislature with the Press because he wasn't familiar. He wasn't aware of what he was presenting to this chamber. He'd rather prepare a Press release on second reading. He'd have an opportunity to see the type of criticism and the type of support that would be generated from the public at large on this legislation.

It wasn't too long ago either, in which the Premier of this province and the Minister of Labour told the people there would be only minor amendments to labour legislation this session. If this is what they call minor amendments I wonder what it will be when there are major

[ Page 106 ]

amendments to labour legislation in this province. I know why, I know why it was presented at this time in such haste with the lack of understanding on the part of the Minister of Labour. It's the political pay off, that's what it is. That's what brought this piece of legislation on the floor of the House at this particular time. It's pay-off. Pay-off for financial, moral and physical support…

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Point of order!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Point of order! Point of order!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think the language "pay-off" is unparliamentary and the imputation is unfair and should be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that is unparliamentary and I seem to recall a previous Speaker having ruled that.

MR. CHABOT: Are you always going to agree that quickly with them?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I…

MR. CHABOT: …the government?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think that I'll be prepared to examine the question and report back to the House.

MR. CHABOT: Well, it's pay-off. I won't call it political pay-off. I'll call it pay-off.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member will cease to use that expression.

MR. CHABOT: Call it pay-off.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's the Speaker — you or the Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Who are you taking your instructions from?

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member to cease using the word "pay-off" in the context that he is using it.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm sorry…

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that's an older rule and if you want me to look I'll report back to you. But in the meantime cease using it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: One has to take into consideration what took place just a few months ago — the type of financial, the type of moral, the type of physical support that was given to that political party — to envisage why this piece of legislation is put on the floor of this House at this particular time.

I think that's parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I think that's parliamentary.

Even the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) received financial support from certain labour leaders during the last provincial election. Thousands of dollars were spent by certain labour leaders on behalf of that Minister of Labour.

[ Page 107 ]

You know, I think to be a Minister of Labour in British Columbia one should be impartial.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Impartial! (Laughter)

MR. CHABOT: You certainly haven't indicated your impartiality to this date. You certainly haven't. Because you've consulted with only one side of the two important forces that are dealing with this piece of legislation. And you know it, and everybody else does too.

I want to say that the original legislation was brought in as a serious attempt on the part of the former government — a serious attempt to protect the public interest and welfare.

Are you opposed to that? Are you opposed to that? You are opposed to the public interest and welfare.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: You are, eh? I never thought, Mr. Speaker, that I would hear a Minister of the cabinet say that he is opposed to the public interest and welfare, as the minister of Agriculture just said. It's shocking, it's shocking that you would hear this in this chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, it is also shocking that you don't address the Chair. Please!

MR. CHABOT: I was speaking to you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, thank you — continue addressing the Chair would you please?

MR. CHABOT: The usage of the Mediation Commission for instance has always been done with a great deal of reluctance. It's always been treated by the former government as a court of last resort. One would tend to believe, Mr. Speaker, that there was referral of labour disputes to the Mediation Commission almost every week, but what are the facts?

The facts are that only six disputes in the last four years have been referred to the Mediation Commission for a binding settlement under section 18. And I protect the public interest and welfare.

The Mediation Commission has always been dealt with at arms length by the former government. It's been treated as an independent body without political interference by the former government at any time. Now I think from the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture, and his lack of concern about the public interest and welfare, that the Minister of Labour, when he closes this debate, has the responsibility to tell the people of this province that he is concerned about the public interest and welfare and there will be some form of action and also to outline the type of legislative programme they have to protect this most important area of concern to the people of this province.

I'm going to say this. I'm not going to oppose the removal of the three man commission because even though it was a genuine attempt on the part of the former government to improve collective bargaining, to improve the labour climate in this province, it hasn't been exactly a success story.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: There were areas in that Act — other sections of the Act which were really never used. And I think that had we had cooperation from both sides — from management and labour — that those sections could have been used to improve the labour climate in this province. But unfortunately the cooperation was not coming from both sides.

There are certain sections of this new Act that have been introduced which I must support because they do bring in flexibility which was badly needed in this particular Act — to bring in flexibility. The section 8

[ Page 108 ]

of the Act, the entire section — it is a lengthy section — is something that we can support because it is a real good section. We have no objections to this.

One thing that I am shocked about though is the method in which you dealt with the three commissioners — the most inhumane way of dealing with individuals. And your government who says and has stated on numerous occasions, that you care for people, do you not consider these three individuals people?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: They are not people. That's all you care about these people — just dollars and cents, eh? You certainly change your opinion from being on the opposition side to the government side, my friend.

I think their rights deserve to be respected, Mr. Speaker, and I think the way in which they were dismissed was a most callous disregard for human rights in this province, a most callous disregard. It was necessary for these individuals to be informed by watching the Premier, in all his histrionics, say on television that they've been kicked off, they've been well-paid. What a way to have your services terminated in the position in British Columbia by a socialist government that claims it cares about people. It's unbelievable, it's unbelievable. The Minister of Labour did not, in my opinion, have the intestinal fortitude.

MR. SPEAKER: No, no, Hon. Member. Order! The Hon. Member knows….

MR. CHABOT: He didn't have the courage then, if you don't like that word.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you know that is unparliamentary and I ask you to withdraw it. Right now.

MR. CHABOT: I'll withdraw, but the Minister of Labour did not have the decency to meet with the three commissioners prior to their being dismissed on television. They've been informed that they are being dismissed by the Premier of this Province and I saw it on television.

Well I'll tell you that public reaction has forced the Minister of Labour to consider the fact that these people have a contract, to consider the possibility of meeting with them now. Only public pressure brought this on. He had no intentions whatsoever prior to public reaction of meeting with these commissioners. After all they are human beings, whether you like them or not. That's back of the hand dismissal which isn't worthy of any government in this country.

I want to say that this doesn't speak very well for your first legislative attempt in this parliament. It doesn't speak very well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Let me make my remarks, eh? You can speak after. You will have an opportunity too, Mr. Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you both address the Chair, please?

MR. CHABOT: Because of the criticism that has been heaped on this particular piece of legislation — the public criticism — the Minister of Labour now says that it is just an initial step. Just an initial step that we will adjust as we go along, you know. "We will fumble-bumble as we go along," that's what he said, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that there are certain sections of this legislation which I don't like. Section No. 11, for instance, where "the Minister may for the purpose of this Act, enter at any time during regular working hours" —  that's very gracious of him to consider doing it only during working hours, you know — "enter any premises. The Minister may exercise

[ Page 109 ]

the powers contained in sub section 1 without the necessity of obtaining a warrant or any other form of authority."

Section 17 also say "the information obtained for the purpose of this Act in the course of his duties by any employee of the Department of Labour shall not be open for inspection by any person or any court and the employee shall not be required by any court to give evidence relative there to." You know, these are pretty broad dictatorial, what I consider police state powers to place in the hands of one man. Those are very broad powers to place in the hands of one man. Very dangerous powers, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that any one man should have the right to have those type of powers conveyed on him by legislation. The power to search and seek without the necessity of a search warrant is almost unbelievable. You've set yourself above the courts of the land with this legislation. It's contrary, in my opinion, to the principles of a free society. It's the heavy hand of state socialism, and unless these dictatorial powers are removed from this legislation….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: …that unless these dictatorial powers are removed from this legislation we will have no alternative but to oppose it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I also digress? This is the first opportunity I've had to rise in this House, and I offer yourself my congratulations on your election and wish you every success in your attempts to reform this chamber. (Laughter). Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but thinking —  it's the first time I have been in the House this session — I couldn't help but thinking that in the last half hour or so's debate, it is the same script, it's only the players that are different. It's just exactly the same script, almost word for word.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill has two principles. The first principle is the removal of the Mediation Commission. With that principle, this party is in agreement. We're on the record both before and during the last election campaign that the Mediation Commission had to be removed, it had to go.

The second principle (and I want to come back to the first one in a minute) is the sweeping powers given the Minister. Particularly the powers that have been referred to under section 11 and 12 where he is empowered to enter any place of business without a search warrant, and where he is empowered to withhold or release information in any way he sees fit.

Those are very sweeping powers, Mr. Speaker, and this bears the same earmarks as that kind of blank cheque legislation that the former government used to bring into this House and which the present government when they were in opposition used to oppose loud and clearly. We objected to that blank cheque legislation and so did the N.D.P. when they were in opposition.

If the powers that are in section 11 and 12, Mr. Speaker, if those powers had been suggested by the last government to be given, for instance, to the former Minister of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation I wonder what the N.D.P. Opposition of that day would have said?

I think the rafters still would be ringing, Mr. Speaker, with those comments that they would have been making. So I find it somewhat shameful to find this party, now that they are sitting on the other side of the House, giving to themselves those kind of blank cheque powers that all of us on the Opposition side have objected to. And it's very strange to hear the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) now suddenly objecting to these

[ Page 110 ]

powers. I didn't hear him objecting to them last spring, Mr. Speaker, he never spoke up in the last session to explain his position on these matters.

He kept very quiet and he voted with the government in every case.

I was concerned two days ago at some word of these sweeping powers. But my concern was alleviated when I picked up the paper yesterday to read that Ray Haynes obviously understood the whole situation and that he was making all the proper arrangements. In fact Mr. Haynes was quoted yesterday as saying, and he's referring to members of the Government, "they haven't gone through the whole Act yet, and this is just a holding proposition."

I wonder who really is pulling the strings. I wonder who the real Minister of Labour is? Quite obvious Mr. Haynes thinks he knows what's going on. So very clearly we object to these sweeping powers and we may propose some amendments which I would hope that the government might consider and support to clear its New Democratic conscience.

Now I'd like to return for a moment to the first principle — that of the removal of the Mediation Commission. I've been involved in the construction industry for the last 22 years. That industry in the last two years, 1970 and 1972, has suffered under divisive, difficult work stoppages that have cost the industry many millions of dollars, have cost the workers in the industry many millions of man hours.

I want to particularly draw the attention of the House, in view of the bill we're discussing now, to a speech made yesterday to the convention of the Amalgamated Construction Association and the labour unions, representatives of the labour unions of the construction industry at Harrison by Mr. Thomas Dohm, who's head of the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

I think that the words he had to say to that convention bear listening to and should be given a lot of consideration to the Members of this House. Mr. Dohm said: "There is need for serious reassessment of your relations with the unions of your industry, the government and the people of B.C." He said, and he's talking now to all the members of the construction industry, labour and management, he's saying, "you have an opportunity all too rare in life, a second chance." Reflect on your aims and objectives, redefine your responsibility to the community, enter into dialogue with the new government and with industries and with unions. Place your officers and committees at the disposal of the Minister of Labour. The evolutionary progress of labour relations has paused briefly. The opportunity to change its course must not be lost.

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign last August I spoke repeatedly of the desirability, of the necessity, of one key word to be brought into labour relations in British Columbia and that word is "flexibility" and the Minister has already referred to that word. I think the last Minister of Labour understands what we are talking about. And as far as this Act will provide that flexibility, this party will support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this particular topic of labour management problems certainly has to be one of the vital issues for this government, or any other government. And I think at least all the three or four parties in the election would agree, if not on the measures that should be adopted, at least on the tremendous importance of revamping existing legislation.

Discussing this bill in principle reminds me of the phrase we had during the election campaign when we would phone each other, and we would start off by saying, "the good news is," and then we would go on to tell each other what the bad news was. And a lot of it was bad.

The fact is that there are many things in this bill, Mr. Speaker, which we certainly can support. I like the statement of the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) that the commission had hardly been a success. I think really it has been a total failure.

In our election campaign we promised that anything we could do to remove, to abolish, the commission and to remove compulsory aspects in arbitration would be pillars of our labour policy and we stand by that. Therefore we can agree with that part of the bill.

[ Page 111 ]

The other thing that always bothers me personally in politics is to have to be against something when there's a large part of it that you're for.  And I've never had anyone explain how you can remain a youthful politician and not be able to take definitive stands. And this is the kind of problem I think we're faced with in this bill.

What is more important, to support a promise you made regarding the Mediation Commission and compulsion, compared to your very deep concern about the democratic process as such? Because I feel that the latter of these two considerations is more important, I would have to vote against this bill.

It is true that the Minister today, and previously in public releases, has said: "It's all right fellows, this is just an interim measure, just don't get excited. It's not all it might be, the bill could have been improved if I had had more time," and so on and so forth. Well, that may well be the sincere feeling of the Minister of Labour and the government but I regret that I am more concerned about the sweeping powers that have been mentioned as having been placed in the hands of one man, and I would have to echo the sentiments of the former speaker as to the absolute howl that went up in this House just a few months ago when "absolute discretion" was to be given to a certain Minister of the former administration whose performance did not rank very highly in the eyes of the N.D.P.

Therefore again it is rather similar to the comment I made yesterday that I sometimes have to look around here and just wonder what in fact has happened that people who were saying one thing a few months ago are saying the very opposite today. And it's working both ways, I might say. So the consistency in politics seems to be another problem that all of us have.

This power however, I might say, Mr. Speaker — giving the Minister the authority to enter premises without a warrant — really is a bit reminiscent of Germany, and the knock on the door in the middle of the night. And as I say, while I do agree with the removing of the commission, and removing compulsion, the way in which the government has sought to do it, with all due respect, I don't think the situation is so urgent that it could not have waited until January.

Between now and January, Mr. Speaker, I think the deficiencies in this bill which compel us to oppose it could have in fact been corrected. Because one of the elements of the bill that also upsets us is the fact that there seems to be no replacement or mention of what I thought was the direction everyone was moving in — namely independence or voluntary arbitration as recommended by such experiencved men in the field as George Meany. If we have George Meany admitting that strikes are a worn out, obsolete tool and that compulsion is not acceptable either then I would have thought that this bill should have at least produced some kind of alternative. Don't just take way what is there and transfer total power to one man.

I think we are dealing with two extremes, with respect, Mr. Speaker, and this is no reflection on the individual who occupies the role of Minister of Labour. I am speaking to the principle of this bill, and the principle that it is bad in a democratic system to concentrate this much power legally in the hands of one man.

And I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm rather shattered by the Press who — and there are numerous editorials and comments in the Press naturally — but what astounds me is that because these powers resided in the hands of a commission of three men the members of the Fourth Estate seem to think that it's quite alright just to transfer these same powers to the hands of one man who happens to be a Minister of the Crown, while the three commissioners are meant to be neutral individuals who would interpret for both sides of the argument. So I'm absolutely astounded that the Press would consider such little difference existing between the neutral feelings and opinion of three men on a commission as compared to giving exactly that amount of power to one man.

We are also upset, or "worried" is a better word, at the repeal or the removal of section 19 which states that disputes with civil servants could

[ Page 112 ]

be referred to the commission. And here again, the Minister, I'm sure, will answer that; "Of course we're going to set up some alternative procedure if you'll just give us time"…and so on. The fact is that this section 19 with special reference to the Civil service means once this is repealed, I presume — and I would like to have the minister's answer to this — that the whole question of whether the civil servants they have the right to strike becomes a much hotter issue than it has been. And with publication of the Carruther's Report, for which I might say in passing we appreciate the government's rapid action in letting us know what that report finally said, we are concerned in the Conservative Party that civil servants certainly should have collective bargaining rights, but we are opposed to any change or any alteration of legislation moving in the direction of giving civil servants the right to strike.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather sad, and I'm sad to think that the Premier who started off in terms of courtesy and good manners, should have made the mistake — I think, at least — of treating the commissioners in a rather shabby fashion.

Whatever we might think of each other or whatever we might think of men doing a job with which we do not agree, they are men of honour and dignity in the community, trying to do a difficult job. Much of the failure of their job was beyond their own power to control and I just do feel that they're worthy of a greater show of courtesy and good manners and that they should have been given the privilege — it isn't a privilege, I think it's their right — to have been told ahead of time of the government's intentions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members opposite there have used some pretty strong language. The Member for Oak Bay who has just taken his seat says that he is astounded at the sweeping powers given to the Minister of Labour in this bill.

You know, Mr. Speaker, these powers have existed in the laws of the Province of British Columbia — and I'm speaking particularly of the right to enter work premises — since 1917 in the Department of Labour Act supported and endorsed through the years by the Liberal Party, by the Conservative Party under your distinguished leader Dr. Tolmie in the early 1930's, by the Social Credit Government. There is nothing new about those powers and they're absolutely necessary if you're going to give protection to the employees.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right, in Tory Ontario they have the same thing. All across Canada….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In Ontario they have these powers — every province of Canada. And there's never been any complaint, Mr. Speaker.

We have never been upset about these sections in the Labour Relations Act.

And, Mr. Speaker, these Hon. Members ought to have done a little bit of research before they came into this. We are trying to provide the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, with the very best research personnel in the world and look what they come up with. (Laughter).

The former Minister attacks a section that he lived with easily while he was the Minister of Labour. And what we're talking about is the protection of employees.

For example: surely the representatives of the Department of Labour were experienced and trusted employees and well-known to the employers for the most part throughout the Province of British Columbia. They go into an office and ask the employer: "Would you mind showing me your payroll because I want to be sure — I've had a complaint — that somebody isn't being cheated with respect to their wages?"

Now does he have to convert that into a criminal proceeding and go before a justice of the peace and get a search warrant? These are the traditional things. Supposing there's hazardous machinery and there was

[ Page 113 ]

a complaint or the department thinks that somebody might be killed or maimed. Can he not go in there and ask the employer very nicely: "May I examine that particular piece of machinery?"

These are traditional powers and nothing whatsoever has been arrogated to the Minister of Labour that hasn't been part of our legislation through the years. And I am talking generally about the Act now. The power to have an industrial enquiry commission which has been a very effective resource in the past, the power of the minister to appoint mediation officers — all this is traditional, normal administration in the field of labour relations and the language that has been used opposite, Mr. Speaker, has been very highly coloured and under researched.

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

MR. J. RADFORD.(Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, I rise to support the bill. I rise to support a couple of the principles that of the eradication of the compulsory aspects of the past bill and also the principle that we deal with in the Mediation Commission.

I speak as one who has been involved as a worker, as a negotiator and as a mediator under this past legislation. And this past legislation with its compulsory aspect has brought about a climate of frustration, mistrust and confrontation between labour and management that we've never seen before in this province. It's going to take time to repair the damage that has been done over the past years. Compulsory arbitration has no place or role to play in a democratic society. It's been tried in many countries and never worked.

It has worked in the totalitarian countries, but third party intervention as was set up under the Mediation Commission was not conducive to meaningful bargaining. Wherever there is a third party lurking in the background that can make the final decision and as the Hon. Member across the floor mentioned the court of last resort we find that in many cases we have the parties relying on that decision.

We find that compulsory arbitration or the Mediation Commission was set up was only a crutch for someone else to do the thinking for the parties involved. Compulsory arbitration is a short cut to solve a problem, it's the easy way out. And in labour management relations there is no easy way. It's hard work — consultation — and many other aspects that I'll mention later on. Lengthy or deep seated problems cannot be solved, only settled under compulsion. Collective bargaining, in effect is power using power. Take power away from either management or labour and you have an unbalance. This is what we had under Bill No. 33. When we start to interfere with the strike or negotiation process we then are taking the guts right out of free collective bargaining. We hear a lot about strikes, we hear people say they are obsolete, no one wins. But really this is the only means that the worker has any power. It's the only means he has to keep that balance of power in negotiations.

To ban strikes or control the ability to strike serves only to transfer disputes to the political arena where they become imbedded in the ideological overtones, which I think the past government realized on August 30.

Many people are surprised by the termination or the intended termination of the Mediation Commission. This was one of our policies. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. They've been paid well. And how, they've been paid!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's sort of twisting it.

MR. RADFORD: As the past Minister of Labour mentioned. They've dealt with six disputes. That's pretty good pay when you consider hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent for salaries. I can recall in June 1954 when the Labour Relations Board made a trip to Victoria and they were terminated by the past government. They were given wristwatches for their endeavours as is related in this article here, in the paper.

[ Page 114 ]

There is also a lovely cartoon by Norris in the June 18, 1954, paper where two people go into a jewelry store and they say: "We'd like to see some nice standard going away gifts, suitable for power commissioners, railway construction engineers, assorted government board members, and miscellaneous civil servants." Well, maybe our Hon. Minister of Labour may consider a like gift in the next few days.

What are the prerequisites of finding a viable and tolerable balance in the relationship of labour business and estate?

I think we have some flexibility as was mentioned before. I don't think it's a blank cheque that we give the Labour Minister. I think that we can bring about solutions in the area of having some consultation between labour and management. Some input by labour, some input by management. I think I would like to see a situation where labour and management can come together and agree on some solution to labour peace in this province, without the government. If that fails, then the government has come in and assist the parties.

In the past there was no consultation. This was one of the problems. Again legislation was the shortcut to problems — it was the easy way out.

In 1954,  Bill No. 28 was passed, 1959 Bill No. 43, 1961 Bill No. 42, Bill No. 33, Bill No. 88. The teachers, the doctors, the welfare recipients — the easy way out, without consultation. None whatsoever.

Today we have many problems in the labour relations field. Technological advancements are coming very fast. They're causing many problems. Problems to government. Problems to management and problems to the worker on the job. Problems to the trade union movement who have jurisdiction, caused by technological changes. It's time that all these parties got together and discussed a solution to some of the problems.

There is another possible avenue that has been discussed by many people; the Industrial Relations Advisory Council, which could consist of experienced responsible representatives of labour and management to study and make recommendations on matters affecting labour management relations in the province.

There is a great need I feel, though, in the collective bargaining process for accurate and unbiased statistical research material to be brought about when the dispute is on. At present the public is left to decide which or what party does the best propaganda job. We have the union putting out their side of the story, we have the management putting out their side of the story and it just depends who has the best P.R. department, I guess, in many areas, who gets and wins the favour of the public because in my opinion the public is the final judge in many cases.

In conclusion, I'd like to quote to you the last five lines in a book called "The Labour Policy in Canada" professors at the Labour College in Canada. He's also in charge of the industrial relations department at McGill University. You may also recall he headed the Wood Task Force Report a few years ago. This is what he had to say.

"The task of finding a viable and tolerable balance in the relationship of labour, business and the state is difficult, but the stakes are high. The degree of personal freedom possible in our society may depend largely on the insight displayed in fashioning labour relations policy."

Mr. Speaker, we have the public interest at heart. This bill is presented to bring about participation. This bill is presented to bring about flexibility not rigidity. This bill is presented to bring about an avenue to industrial peace in this province.

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

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm a little surprised by one of the leaders of the opposition over there, when he talks about the bill as being one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever introduced by this government. He makes it sound as if we've been in for a long time, and then he tells us that he's going to

[ Page 115 ]

support the bill. That is as confusing to me, as were many of his actions throughout the past three or four years since he's been the Minister of Labour. I'm thankful, believe me, that he's no longer in that position.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I'm not supporting the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's changed his mind.

MR. GABELMANN: You're voting against the bill?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, yes.

MR. GABELMANN: It's good to know. Mr. Speaker, the problem with labour relations is that it is far too complex for most people in our society to understand. I guess one of the reasons for that is our education department over the years has never felt that labour trade unions, working people, should even be talked about in education. Leave it out because that's dirty politics, or leave it out because we have a class orientation to our whole education system which says it's fine to talk about business, but don't talk about labour.

I hope the Department of Education will begin to change this policy so that future Members of this House will have some understanding about the whole question of labour relations — by far, in my view, the most complex topic going.

I view it sometimes a little bit the same as a marriage. There is no way that a government of a Legislature or any so-called impartial group in society is able to tell a married couple how they are going to regulate their business. The only people who can decide in that marriage what's going to happen in that marriage, whether it's going to continue, what the new rules and regulations are going to be in that marriage are the two people involved. Labour relations is exactly the same thing. Only the two parties involved.

Mr. Speaker, it's many years away but I hope we get to the day in labour relations where we no longer need mediation officers, because I think they are a crutch that parties should learn to do without. I think that we would have far less labour strife in our society if each party understood that it had to come to a conclusion with those difficulties on their own, without any outside assistance. Then, they would get down to business and they wouldn't wait to be bailed out like they've been doing for so long now.

Fortunately, we're going to do away with that silly commission and we can begin to start this process where we have both parties looking after it, both parties knowing that there is no way that they can get bailed out — like management has known for so long in B.C. Four-and-a-half years it has been, a happy day to get rid of that.

This new Act — let me refer to that silly nonsense that the newspapers have been referring to and I see it being picked up by some of the opposition Members, about the sweeping powers. The Attorney General, I felt, dealt with them pretty adequately. The whole thing is a pack of nonsense. The other Members for one of the North Vancouver ridings should have another look at what it was he said and have a look at it in relation to the labour law across the country, in relation to the labour law that used to be in this province.

If the Minister of Labour can't go into a factory or into a saw-mill to check up on something what in the heck can he do? Those are essential powers in my view, but the minute the Minister of Labour begins to abuse those powers, if I can get to him first, I'll be the first one to complain to him and make sure that he doesn't do it any more.

I think that what this new piece of legislation or what this new piece of legislation are what this simple repeal of the Mediation Commission allows us to do now in this province — to begin a discussion, that has never been held yet in British Columbia in a proper way. A discussion which can allow us to draft a brand new labour Act which can be

[ Page 116 ]

a model for all of North America. We can get down to talking about how can we organize the unorganized because we're now in a new framework, Mr. Speaker, where we don't have the bitternesses created by that commission. We can now sit down labour, management and government — and decide just how is it we can make some progress with organizing the unorganized — the people in our society who are left out. The people in our society who need representation in order that they can better cope with the economic demands of our society.

One of the things that we can look at is improving the certification procedures. This sometimes takes six months now, Mr. Speaker, to get a certification through. Reducing it to 35 per cent, taking a vote after 35 per cent rather than 50 per cent, maybe instant certification, a full-time labour relations board, written decisions and onus on the part of the employer to prove that an employee should be fired during an organizing drive and not the other way around as it is now.

There are a great many things to discuss in this whole question of organizing, Mr. Speaker. And one thing I might say about the labour relations board at the moment is the whole question of determining bargaining units. They make decisions one day and the next day they make a decision totally contradictory. There's just no way that the people out there who are organizing have any opportunity to know exactly what the board is going to do in terms of bargaining units.

Mr. Speaker, the new Act allows us to begin a rational discussion about collective bargaining. The whole principle of free collective bargaining. Do we go the Australian route where they have compulsion? Where they have a lot of stiff legislation and the most industrial strife in the world? Or do we go into what I think is the best system. A system which does not have any restrictions whatsoever.

It may sound strange, Mr. Speaker, coming from a socialist, but I think the less law we have on this subject, the better we all are. The less law on this the better.

There's a couple of keys, and I'm coming to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker. The two keys that are important in order that we do have good atmosphere in this province.

The first thing is a strongly-organized work force so we don't have a situation where we have the unorganized against the organized because of the economic income differences. We have got to make sure that everybody is represented, everybody is organized so they all have a fair kick at the can. That's the first thing.

The second thing, Mr. Speaker, is — I mentioned this before — it's important in this new atmosphere that the parties understand that they have to make decisions on their own. We're coming to that and this new piece of legislation gives us that chance.

The third thing, and this is very important, Mr. Speaker, the third thing is that there must be a high degree of economic security in the community. As long as we have the threat of unemployment, as we do now, as long as we have the threat of inflation, as we do now, we are not going to be able to tell working people that they shouldn't be asking for the moon. Because believe me, if I were negotiating a contract here in this House at the moment for my salary I would be negotiating for the moon because there's not much security in this job. You know, you can lose it very quickly.

And it's the same thing in our industrial community out there now. Those people are aware that they could lose their jobs or they can lose the value of their income because of inflation. That leads to a situation where occasionally you get uncalled-for demands. I think we can reduce the whole level of those demands if we can create a better economic climate.

The final thing, Mr. Speaker, is the whole question of mediation officers. I mentioned earlier that I didn't believe in the whole idea of having a third party involved but I recognize that because both labour and management are now so used to it and they rely upon it so much it is a necessary ingredient. Therefore let's do something with it. Let's pay those guys decent wages. Let's give them some recognition. And let's give

[ Page 117 ]

them some power to make recommendations. You know, they can't even make recommendations now in a dispute. That's absurd.

That's all I want to say, Mr. Speaker. I'm personally going to look forward very much to the drafting of a new Act and I want to thank the Minister for giving us that opportunity because he's done it by removing in this bill by removing that Mediation Commission. Thank you.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I don't know if it was before or after this bill was drafted that the Hon. Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) appointed the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) but it seems to me that the document bestows I'm sure the Premier had to look around and find the only man with the name of King and have him as the Minister of Labour.

I think that's how that came about.

Mr. Speaker, we indeed welcome the abolition of the office of the Mediation Commission. In our view that office and that function became obsolete and discredited both by management, by labour and by all parties. Even after the election oddly enough, by the Social Credit. But, Mr. Speaker, it was one of the former government's more famous buffers. It was one of the former government's more obvious fire curtains to try to keep the government fireproof from the problems of management and the problems of labour and from dealing effectively with each of them. But it didn't work.

I would, however, not go along with the language of the earlier speakers today, but I do feel with respect, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that your treatment of the individuals was somewhat cavalier because these people were working in an unworkable framework that conceivably was not designed by the, but by the former administration.

I would put in, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister a word for the 17 other employees who I'm sure and indeed hope that the Hon. Minister will find as best he can suitable employment in other areas of the Civil Service. For goodness' sakes, let's not go ahead and provide a hazy future for them. It's very true that these people were not hired under the provisions of the Civil Service but they were treated as such, paid as such and surely to goodness let us hope there is a great area there to benefit from their experience over the years.

And dealing with that item, I would suggest to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, that he request these three Mediation Commissioners to prepare individual briefs of their expertise and observations over the years and of what recommendations that they personally would have for the betterment of the labour management industrial climate in the province. Because I would very much, Mr. Speaker, like to see the taxpayer of this province receive some benefit from that very, very expensive experiment. I think this would be one way to do it.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Minister, please be sure not to go ahead and throw the baby out with the bath water. I think within the Mediation Commission there is one element that is a very valuable element to the Province of B.C. and it should definitely be retained. I'm talking about its statistical and research expertise. I would suggest to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, who speaks to the principle of this bill that those resources are ones that we should not lose. I would suggest to the Hon. Minister that perhaps he could see his way clear to investigate and recommend the appointment of an independent industrial research service and use the expertise that the research department of that Mediation Commission has built up over the years to form a base for the industrial research service that I've just suggested.

Its function I think would be a very, very valuable function. I made this suggestion once to the former government and one of the Ministers felt rather kindly to it but it was not acted upon. I think it's a very valid suggestion and I do hope, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister will give it his earnest consideration.

The function of this research service would enable the public to have an independent microscope and make ready and available for the general public of B.C. an impartial and true and unweighted set of facts or statistics and

[ Page 118 ]

economic data when they are examining the two sides of an industrial dispute. That is certainly something that the general public does not enjoy now. I think that this would being into far better perspective the materials that is fought out in the Press through a public relations campaign and a Press campaign of both management and labour of these apples and orange statistics where the general public doesn't really have an opportunity to see what the independent position is. I would commend the Minister to give thought to establishing just this kind of a body.

I would also suggest that you have taken another step in this bill and that is to provide that collective agreements don't have to be filed, with the mediation service. I think this again serves to emasculate the research service we should turf these kinds of things out. I think that we should do whatever we can to retain as much of the public watchdogs sentiments that we can.

Now, I would like to say a couple of words about the powers and I would like to address myself at the termination of these remarks somewhat to the statements a little bit earlier made by the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

Now the New Democratic Party has always been passionately fond of civil liberties and we've had some excellent talks in this House from the former Opposition on exactly those points.

But I do feel, and I concur with the sentiments, but not with the expression of the sentiments of some of the other Members when they said today that you may as well, pretty well, set an extra place at the table for the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) in pretty well every kind of an operation because he can come as, when, and if he chooses and without invitation consent or warrant.

Now, this to me just looks a little bit like Big Brother and quite frankly I do not find the historical background that the Honourable Attorney General found to support the premise that you're raising here. And I will be talking about that in a couple of seconds.

Now, I think not only has the minister in this statute, Mr. Speaker, given himself complete powers to receive information — which are fine and dandy, and I think he's very much entitled to that — but he should receive that information in confidence. I very much question that he should have the right to blurt out whatever portion of it he wishes, and only as he wishes, in public. So he's blessed, shall we say, with the totality of power to receive information — also total power to disseminate it, and publish it whenever he wishes to, whenever he directs, and whenever he chooses. We don't find checks, or any balances here and this is raw unbridled power. This is the very thing that we heard from those great speeches from the former Member from Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) about in the last session, and many sessions behind that. And I'd say that…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: You're the Minister and you're so elevated now I nearly forgot myself, Hon. Minister, my apologies. You do look good with your flower there too. I say what fertile ground for abuse of power here. You could have censorship, selective information and stool pigeoning of the very worst. And this I don't think is the way the new government wishes to come in with legislation.

I would repeat there would have been no more indignant and more vocal and rightfully so, and fought so hard against this opportunity — and I'm not saying it would happen — but this opportunity for the abuse of power as the former official opposition of this House.

If it's bad cloth, Mr. Speaker, it's bad cloth, and it doesn't matter too much who the tailor is. And I say that some of these sections are very bad cloth indeed.

I say don't go ahead and set up something that is capable of misuse with the argument that you're not going to misuse it. With respect to the (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) I would suggest to him never mind the hoary

[ Page 119 ]

arguments of the past, that because it was done in the past and we've got to do it now, because you're a New Democratic Party. You're not a hoary Democratic Party, you're a New Democratic Party….

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you spell it?

MR. GARDOM: H-O-A-R-Y, Sir. You're a New Democratic Party. And for you to go ahead and suggest to the House, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Attorney General coming to the legal defense of the Hon. Minister of Labour and suggesting to the House that this was something that was merely inherited or inherited through a wisdom channeled from former government, I find it rather difficult myself to determine by perusal of the statutes.

I have to readily admit I did not quite go back to 1917. However, I did go back a little bit of the way. In the little bit of the way that I went back I find out that in the 1954 statutes you had a Board of Conciliation, Mr. Speaker. That consisted of three people, and they were set up under very stringent rules, and stringent regulations and very, very definite and clearly-defined guidelines. They also had to take a specific oath which we don't find here, because there is an unlimited right to disseminate any portion of the information that the Hon. Minister may wish to do.

But not so under the former Labour Relations Act, not so there at all. It is true that they had the opportunity, as the Attorney General said to go ahead and come in without warrant during regular working hours. But look what the Minister's power of disseminating information was restricted to. He may direct "that the decision of a Conciliation Board be published in such a manner as he thinks proper." And if the decision was not unanimous the minister may also direct "that all findings and recommendations be published."

Now it's one thing, Mr. Speaker, to be talking about publishing decisions, and it's another thing to give the Minister the raw unbridled power to let trickle out one or two facts that he alone may selectively choose and I think that's far too much power.

So I went back from 1960 and 1954, back to the next statute and I got back to 1948 and I'm afraid that's all the time that I had at my disposal to check into this point. But I don't find any of the references in 1948, 1954 or 1960. So I think if the Hon. Attorney General is seeking to enlighten the Province of British Columbia by referring to 1917 he's even more out of date than the Social Credits.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief. I just want to make a couple of comments — particularly one that was delivered by the former Minister. He complained that the legislation was hasty. Well, I might remind him that it wasn't hasty, we were a little out of breath after 35 days but it wasn't hasty. We had four-and-a-half years to think about what we were going to do with this one. I would suggest that his Bill No. 88 was very hasty, ill-conceived and showed a tremendous amount of lack of knowledge of the labour movement.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) wanted to know who's pulling the strings? Well, I'll tell him who is pulling the strings. On this one the people of British Columbia pulled the strings when they elected us. Sitting on this side of the House are 12 active trace unionists. They are the people that have put the input into this kind of legislation. And four of them sit in the Legislature cabinet.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: We are interested in people, my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[ Page 120 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: I would just like to say one other thing. That I am very happy to see that some of the leaders of the business and management community have expressed an earnest desire for a better climate to exist in respect to labour management relations. Over the last few days we heard a number of speeches which have been very positive in terms of the principles of the legislation that we have before us. I think that that augurs well for labour peace in this province. Because for the first time there's a lessening of hostility and I think that is one of the reasons why we've felt it necessary to introduce this legislation now in order to create the climate now — not in a few months but now. It is necessary to defuse that atmosphere that that Hon. Member over there contributed so much to.

In 15 months he did almost as much damage as the government that was in power for 20 years. But it is our intention in terms of this bill to have an atmosphere between labour and management that will not require a third party intervention. It won't require, my friend, welfare either because the kind of atmosphere we want to create nobody will have to go on strike, and there will be no need for them to get support. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members. As a member for many years of the work force of this province I must commend the Minister for this bill.

It is a step into the future, I feel, and not backward into the past — to get back to an era of trust and understanding of some kind between the two parties, to any kind of an agreement or any kind of living association.

This is going to give the flexibility that is necessary to meet the problems that are here today. And it's going to give the flexibility necessary to meet the problems as they arise in the future. And the problems that are arising on the industrial future of this province as far as employee relations are concerned are so great and so many that we can't even picture them all for the next three to four years.

This province since 1942 has been building one process industry after another. And by process industries I mean those such as refineries and chemical plants. In plants of this type management is requiring a greater and greater amount of training and education. And the job itself through automation is giving less and less personal satisfaction every month that goes by, in every job and every bit of technamation that is brought into the plant.

They are requiring senior matriculation for many of these plants, and demanding junior matriculation. And after a training period and a man takes over the supervision of perhaps $3 million worth of equipment at the end of eight hours that probably is from midnight till eight in the morning, because most of these jobs are shift work, the only satisfaction he has for his education, for his training, and for these hours he has put in is perhaps go to the rundown sheet or the records and see that he has perhaps helped to contribute to put six inches in tank No. 1008, and maybe he has helped to make two inches more in a certain chemical tank than they made in the same week in the year before.

This is one of the greatest causes we're going to have in frustration and alienation of the work force in this province in the future —  the lack of job satisfaction — and I do not know how this can be legislated against or for. It is a problem which we're going to have to have a lot of flexibility in our present legislation, and these consultations that we've talked about between management, labour and government, may have to include some psychologists to help with this question of alienation and lack of satisfaction in the job that you're doing.

Most of these jobs, Mr. Speaker, are well paid, most of them have excellent pension plans, but they all have these horrible lack of worth that every person in the work force in this country should have in the job he's doing. The result of this is that when bargaining time comes — and

[ Page 121 ]

we've seen many examples in the past — and his committee comes out of talking with management and makes a representation for settlement with the members of that union they get the one chance they ever have to strike out and relieve their frustration.

They turn it down, they say it's not good enough and send them back in even though it was probably a very good settlement. This is a thing which has probably contributed in my opinion to the problems in the work force in this province, and it's not one that you're going to correct by compulsion of any kind.

I can understand some of the Opposition Members fear in this bill about the powers and how will we fare at the unbridled use of power by the government. I can understand why they're concerned. They've seen 10 years of it in the past. So no wonder they fear it.

Interjection by An Hon. Member.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I'm only speaking about the worst 10. (Laughter). I hope to see the Minister set up a committee to study this thing, the matters that I raise, because it's growing more and more all the time. There are more and more process plants and in consequence there are more and more people who are working at a job, feeling useless and they're not getting enough out of their work or no satisfaction as a person or an employee. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, and Mr. Speaker, may I be the first to congratulate the Member for Kamloops for his fine speech. It's a fine speech, exactly the type of quality of presentation in this House that you can expect from someone with the name that he bears. (Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm quite sure that the Hon. Member from Kamloops will be making the good contribution to our discussions.

I will quickly say, if you'll permit an aside, that it was one of the more difficult campaigns because, of course, the name was the same.

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned by other Members of the Liberal Party in this debate, we intend to support this bill. We do so however, and I'd like to make this perfectly clear, on accepting the clear understanding of the Premier which was given yesterday and at other times as well that he wanted to have all parties in this House and all Members of this House cooperate and put forth their best ideas by way of amendment. He said he will consider them and accept those that he felt were improvements. We intend to do precisely that.

There will be amendments brought forth at the correct stage. We will be putting forward amendments.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well we've sent in a few ourselves. Don't know where he might be.

In any event….

AN HON. MEMBER: Probably out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nice of you to help us out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We realize that it is the desire of the government to get on with the certain things that they talked about during the campaign and of course before. We do regret that there are apparently some things which have been forgotten in this bill, and some things included which should not be included — and I'm thinking in particular of the excessive powers granted to the Minister.

[ Page 122 ]

I say this with all due respect. I think that one of our difficulties in arguing today is who could believe that a Minister who is as nice as our good friend opposite could possibly misuse these powers. Indeed, this was the error that the Hon. Member, in another excellent first speech to this House, the Hon. Member from North Vancouver–Seymour, made when he spoke.

He said: "Of course plenty of power has been given to the Minister and I'll be the first to jump on him if he makes any mistakes."

Well, we shouldn't be granting Ministers that type of power, I feel, simply because we don't think that they'll misuse them. We therefore will be putting amendments in to this bill and I trust that the Hon. Minister of Labour will realize that it's not in any way a reflection upon him or his ability or his honesty or integrity, not at all. It's indeed, because as I said, it's more difficult to argue this point because he is by reputation and by personal knowledge a very fine man. But, we do have to realize that other people may take this portfolio. Who knows, indeed, a government may change sometime, some of the rogues and rascals who may be on this side of the House, either here or there, I know not, may wind up in that position. Therefore we have to think of this very carefully.

All I would suggest to the Hon. Attorney General is that wide-ranging powers are of course in certain bills and lawyers can easily make a case to continue to include such wide a power as being granted the Minister. Certainly lawyers who are Ministers can continue to make arguments that more and more wide power should be granted to Ministers. I can only remind him of the words of his predecessor and I quote from the Vancouver Sun for June 21 where there were a number of seizures of documents by R.C.M.P. under warrant —

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No… No, that's quite right, Mr. Attorney General, it was not under this Act but the then Attorney General, and I quote him, Mr. Peterson said that the police visits to union offices were "normal procedure." It is the type of thing which I think that you should try and avoid. You should try and anticipate problems. You should try and improve legislation, not simply say that: "Well, my father did it while he was Attorney General, and I'm going to do it now, when I'm Attorney General." (Laughter)

I feel that the object of our whole purpose here is to try and improve legislation, year by year as we go ahead and therefore I will….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, naturally Hansard could not report references of the Attorney General to his grandfather. (Laughter).

Nevertheless, it is something we should consider fairly seriously. We are trying to improve legislation.

The argument that is done elsewhere is not really a valid argument. You should be able to justify it here and now, in terms of whether it is good or bad — not in terms of whether it was done in 1917 or whether it was done in another province, such as Ontario or Saskatchewan, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney General, Sir. You have not made that case yet, and therefore we simply go on record now as saying that while we will be supporting this bill in principle, we do so under very clear understanding that we are taking the Premier's word very seriously. We are taking him at his word that he will consider the reasonable amendments from the Opposition to improve legislation.

We feel that we have such amendments coming forward and I simply remind the House and of course, in particular the back benchers of the New Democratic Party, that at this stage we are simply discussing the principle of the bill.

When these amendments come we trust that they will treat them with the credit they deserve.

[ Page 123 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Fort George.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a real pleasure to be here with you today. I would like to congratulate you in your new office. I think I'd like to congratulate every Member in this House for being elected or re-elected in this election. It's a real pleasure to be here.

I just want to make one or two points on this question. I think our riding is one that suffered probably as much as any other riding, by virtue of the compulsion in the Mediation Commission.

Free collective bargaining has just not existed in the past and I think that we should give this a great deal of thought. Just what does free collective bargaining mean… I think it simply puts legislation into effect that puts both sides on equal ground in their bargaining programme.

If you equip one side or the other with legislation that they can use as a weapon and keep it in their back pocket while they are bargaining, then the side that's got that weapon is going to have the position to use it. Either to procrastinate — he can afford to be arrogant and when one side, be it management or labour is able to be arrogant, then the other side becomes militant and you just do not have any bargaining process at all. I think as long as we have free collective bargaining we're going to make a big step forward toward labour peace.

I think the real thing that we should keep in mind is the question of when a dollar becomes worth 80 cents and a person is working for a pay cheque and $100 becomes worth $80, he is certainly going to have an incentive to bring it back up to that level.

If I'm a merchant and something goes up a dime or two I'll be able to mark it up. This is part of the economic process. But in collecting a pay cheque you have to fight for everything you get and when inflation starts eating into your pay cheque, you want to do something about it, and if we want to force people to prevent them from fighting to maintain what they have been receiving, that is a purchasing power of their work. You are not going to be able to restrain them with force and I think that's the whole thing. We remove force from the bargaining process and let them discuss and negotiate on particular arguments or statistics or whatever they need to discuss.

I think also we should look at this question of power. Do we want to give free license to people, to operations, to indulge in sweatshop labour conditions? If nobody is going to check up on a place or pay it a visit once in a while they are going to find management indulges in labour sweatshop conditions.

I can also think of an example in my riding where there was a case. A fellow got fired because he refused to lift a man in a bucket on a crane to do some maintenance work way up top. They fired him because he refused to do that.

When the case was examined it turns out — and of course this was what his argument was, the fellow that got fired — the case was examined and this particular bucket did not conform with the specifications for the sake of safety. It was a continuous hazard. It also turned out that this bucket was picked up from a scrap heap from the construction period, and they made a make-shift arrangement to lift people up in this bucket.

They tried to argue that this fellow shouldn't have done that — there are other ways to refuse without taking up a position like this. But nevertheless the arbitration board reinstated him and put him back to work.

It was agreed that apparently that he maybe shouldn't have done that, but the company shouldn't have done that for the previous five years either.

Now if you don't have ways and means to govern these things, then you are going to encourage violation of safety, of hours, of so on and so forth. In regard to the officers' pay. Somebody says that they get $40,000 a year. Just one observation on that value — it's equivalent of 22 years of pay that a widow will get in workmen's compensation benefits

[ Page 124 ]

when her husband is killed in an industrial accident. Surely, this is something we should all keep in mind.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I would like to say first of all I am sure that the Speaker appreciates the nature of the debate this afternoon. It has been carried on in such good feeling.

I don't think the Hon. Attorney General should be concerned about the vehemence in debate. Based upon the experience yesterday, when the official opposition attacks you vehemently you know whether they are going to vote with you. I think you know that they have to have some way of telegraphing these little suggestions and I think you should encourage it. It certainly helps us in knowing what they are going to do.

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker who sat down, in the course of his remarks mentioned the value of research and I must echo the comments by the second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) in expressing concern that the sections which have been repealed in this Act are going to remove, perhaps, from the availability of the minister competent people, and I hope that this will be overcome.

The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) also raised a matter of what work really is today, and how meaningful the employment is and how enjoyable it may be or not be for the worker. I think that we would all agree that men and women need to work, but the concern will always be before us as to when work stops and it becomes toil, and that we must do everything that we can to ensure that toil is destroyed whereas the right and the ability to work remains with us always.

Too, the Hon. first Member from Vancouver South (Mr. Radford) spoke about the fact of having a third party present in connection with disputes in industrial matters. I'm sure he would be the first to agree with me that the situation has arrived in our modern economy when in any industrial dispute there always is a third party and that is the general public and that the effect of the resolution of any industrial dissolute — the effect of a strike — the effect of a lockout — is felt not only by those who are directly involved, but also by the third party. It is surely our responsibility as legislators from every area and region of this province to be concerned that when we do have legislation dealing with these disputes that the public interest is foremost in our consideration.

Because if labour as a group in society or if management as a group in society begins to take positions which are contrary to the public interest, then they must be expected to give way. With that in mind, I must express some criticism of the Minister. I'm sorry that today was the first time he rose in his place in this House and congratulated you, Mr. Speaker, on your election.

I would have thought that in view of the expressions from all sides of the House today, the Minister would have been on his feet during the previous debate, to tell us what he said today that he was going to hold hearings and he was anxious to get on with them. I would have had on the orders of this House by now a motion for the purpose of establishing a committee either composed entirely of, or including, Members of this House — the committee that is going to hold these various hearings. Because I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, it will not be good enough if you meet with representatives of labour, if you meet with representatives of management to discuss what future changes you will make in this legislation or companion legislation. Because there are other more important groups affected by this legislation who's voices must be heard, and you will never be able to seek them out unless you establish a committee which is able to hold hearings throughout this province, to receive briefs, be they from consumer groups, from senior citizens, from small business people — whatever segment of society they may call their own.

They must be heard. Their thoughts must be received by the committee and their ideas must be taken into account in the formulation of that

[ Page 125 ]

legislation which we still look forward to receive from government. In order that such a committee can not only do the job of assisting you in drafting legislation which we hope you will have before us at the next session, but also to enable members of this House better to deal with that legislation when it comes to this House, I suggest that they should be on that committee from the outset. Nonpartisan — all parties sitting which there has been evidence in the debates today. That's what we need and that's the kind of motion, Mr. Minister, which you should have had on the order paper of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I rise today to make a token participation in this debate on labour legislation in British Columbia. I think the Minister in his opening remarks indicated this is an interim piece of labour legislation. This is required as early as possible because somewhere back in previous years labour management relations had taken a wrong turn and it's necessary sometimes to go back on part of the road you've travelled in order to get back on the right road. This is an interim procedure in effort to get us back on the right road. I'm making this token participation today, because I happened to be in the House the night that we started up that wrong road. At a time —  and that was the 1954 session of the Legislature when the then Minister of Labour introduced legislation. It was a night sitting, he spoke to second reading. He was going to abolish the full-time Labour Relations Board. He told the House that he was abolishing this board because: "They had exceeded their responsibility."

How anyone could exceed their responsibilities in trying to bring labour and management together I don't know, and the Minister never did explain. But further he said the abolition of the full-time Labour Relations Board would save the Province of British Columbia $65,000 a year. That was the most expensive $65,000 this province ever saved. That was the first step down that wrong road.

And from time to time in the succeeding years other legislation was introduced. Each piece of legislation we were told would bring labour peace to British Columbia. But each piece of labour legislation that was introduced by the previous administration brought more friction, more abrasive language, especially from the Government side of the House, against labour, and created more and more the kind of climate that brought this disaster in the labour management field to the Province of British Columbia.

The spokesman for the official opposition when he stood up said the present legislation was ill-conceived, ill-prepared legislation. I have to agree that in 35 days we had to determine what first steps had to be taken. I have to agree that the legislation that he supported while it may have been ill-conceived was not hasty. It was carefully calculated to bring about a certain result. And it indicated the position of that particular government vis-à-vis labour and management.

That same spokesman for the official Opposition talked about the way in which the Mediation Commission had been handled in-so-far as the dispensation of the jobs were concerned. I was in this House when a previous administration introduced a bill. And that bill disposed of the services of a top civil servant in the Province of British Columbia. Just like that. And not one Member on the government side of the House gave any reason of any kind why that individual should be removed from office.

Completely different situation. Here was a position where both labour and management had agreed that the Mediation Commission as a part of bringing labour management peace is a complete failure. And that if you're going to do something about it there has to be legislation. An agreement that something had to be done about it and that's what was done.

I disagree with — I think it was one of the Liberal Members — who said we should get some value for the money that has already been expended. I think the people of this province have had some value, a great deal of value, for the money expended.

[ Page 126 ]

We received an education, we received an education. One, that you can't legislate human perfection. Two, that you can't chain workers to the job through compulsion. Three, that you can't have labour/management peace with one-sided legislation. And that's what we've had in the past, one sided legislation. And the legislation itself became a major part of the province.

I think we've heard some fine speeches today on all sides of the House indicating concern of the Members of this House about labour/ management relations and what can be done to improve it in the Province of British Columbia. I have said for many years that the government must give the leadership in setting the climate. And this government is giving the leadership and will give the leadership to re-establish the kind of climate that is very necessary for labour, management and peace in the Province of British Columbia.

I think the government must be a prime example, and that's why we've said that the civil servants of this province will be treated in the same way as other workers and other citizens in the Province of British Columbia.

I think we have to have labour legislation that will allow more flexibility and more freedom. Because the administration, and the previous legislation was a mechanistic, ritualistic thing which took labour and management down the road step by step with no escape toward a compulsory strike situation.

There was no way out because you made it so ritualistic there was no flexibility, there was no way to escape. Finally came that final step — a strike vote. Once a strike vote was taken a psychological barrier was removed and there was the strike and the lock-out which has bedeviled us so much in the past.

I think we have to recognize, in writing labour legislation, the facts of the forces that operate in the society today. The personal satisfaction that comes to a worker through his job. Society has produced some jobs that it must be very difficult to live with year after year without personal satisfaction. Somehow we have to find a legislation that will allow that individual to negotiate with management so that the individual does get some compensation for what we do to them as human beings in doing these very necessary production jobs in a disciplined economic production factor.

I think this is a good first step in correcting the errors of the past. I think the debate has been on the level that we all appreciate, and I hope that with the help of everyone we can create that kind of society where there is a symbiosis really — that's the situation we're after achieving — between labour and management. Wherein each group requires the help of the other in order to achieve their maximum.

That's the sort of objective that this government has first in bringing in this legislation and then getting the time to bring in a completely new attitude, a completely new legislation that will start us back up the right road.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to prolong this debate. I would like though, to make just a few comments in passing and one of the things that seems to be emanating from the Opposition benches today is that the Mediation Commission has been used as some kind of an axe, or some kind of a tool hanging over the head of labour. Was it not also….

AN HON. MEMBER: The Government benches.

MR. PHILLIPS: Or the Government bench — pardon me, pardon me. I have to get used to my position in this House. I'm sorry. From the Government bench. Is this same axe, is this same tool not hanging over the heads of the business leaders of this community? Are they not subject to the same, as you call it, devastation should this axe fall?

[ Page 127 ]

I wasn't in this House when this was passed, but I read that where a dispute between any employer or group of employees, and his or their employees or a trade union is not resolved, and in the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council it is necessary in order to protect the public interest — is that not what the Mediation Commission is all about, to protect the public interest? Do you not think that by protecting the public interest that many times you may be protecting the worker himself who is not desirous of being out on strike, and his wife and his children who do not want to have their father out on strike?

Is that not what the Mediation Commission was put in to protect? Was it not put in to protect certain segments of the society that may be no party or partial to a labour dispute and through no fault of their own, their own economy, or their own business may be entirely wiped out?

Is that not what the Mediation Commission was all about? I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) what he intends as an interim piece of legislation, or how he's going to handle it, should there be a devastating strike in the province between now and the time his proposed new legislation is brought down.

Because without this Mediation Commission we could in theory have a strike that would be devastating to the entire Province of British Columbia.

How is he going to handle it? You going to handle it — how? Mr. Minister of Lands Forests and Water Resources. I would like to know, I'm serious about this, I'm not standing on my feet to create a hazard here today, or prolong the debate. I am sincerely interested in knowing and I have faith enough in the Minister of Labour and I know him as a gentleman that when he closes the debate on this particular Act that he will try and endeavour to answer my questions.

Because as I said before, supposing — and we have had this and it has hurt the farmers in my area in the past where dock strikes, where train strikes might have tied up the movement of grain — again through no fault of the farmer, through no fault of the agriculture industry.

But they have tied up grain shipment, have hurt the off-shore market for the export of grain and if the farmer doesn't sell his grain how can he continue to buy the products, and continue to feed his family and continue to pay his taxes?

You know this, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, and there again I think you are making fun of a serious question that I am asking about the farmers in my area. How are they going to be protected if there is a devastating strike — and school buses have got nothing to do with it Mr. Minister of Agriculture. School buses have got nothing to do with the question that I'm seriously asking in this House, Mr. Minister of Agriculture.

I want to know what interim measures are going to be taken to protect the other segments of this society, Mr. Speaker, and I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, the seriousness of my questions here this afternoon. I know that certainly the Minister of Labour will endeavour to answer them when he goes on to move second reading. All I want to know, Mr. Minister of Labour, is what you are going to do to protect the working man, what you are going to do to protect those segments of our society who want no part of or are impartial to a strike? Are you Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, going to ban the strike as a method of settling Labour disputes? Is it your intention to ban the strike and come up with something new, something aggressive, something entirely new, a first in the whole world, for settling labour disputes?

If you are, I would certainly wish you success and tell you that you would certainly have my support from this side of the House if you can come up with something new. You are supposed to be an aggressive forward looking government. You are for the working man, so you say I hope that you take all parts of the working man, all parts of labour, and not just the labour bosses into consideration when you bring in your new legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

[ Page 128 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the House too long. I think this is an appropriate time for me to express a number of comments about this particular bill and a reaction prior to the introduction of the bill and the community.

I have received some very, very kind letters, some very extensive phone calls, prior to this bill being introduced, from prominent businessmen in British Columbia whose letters are in my office if anyone who cares to go through them. Some of them are beyond the usual letter of congratulation. You are welcome to see them, I'll file them if you want. You can go through the whole file. I have had literally hundreds of letters and I have had my staff using their own discretion of selecting some of the letters. I received phone calls from a number of prominent businessmen…

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you file them all?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You come down to my office and take as long as you want to go through all the correspondence. No, I don't think there is any point of bringing them all up to file up here, but if you want to come to my office, you can go through all the letters.

What I am offering is in the spirit that these letters were sent and the spirit which these phone calls were made. One of the phone calls, and its not a private matter, one of the phone calls was from none other than J. V. Clyne. Mr. Clyne is a citizen of British Columbia, and the other people who contacted me expressed to me personal good wishes to the government.

They made it clear that they are not N.D.P.ers but they are citizens of British Columbia. They expressed sincere good wishes to the government. They expressed sincere good wishes to the government. They expressed to me the very best hope that we would be able to develop a different labour management climate in this province. Not loaded in favour of management, or in favour of labour. Mr. Clyne asked as well as the other letters that we would consider all points of view in drafting new legislation. We intend to do that. We intend to do that, and I am pleased that almost everybody who has spoken in the House welcomes a new approach in labour management relation. Whatever bill we come up with will take the input not only of all the MLA's in this House, but from labour, from management, from any interested citizen and we will try to come up as far as humanly possible with a bill that will accommodate some solutions hopefully to this very vexing problem.

No one is ever going to prevent disputes between groups of people or between individuals. Unlike the former Premier I've never considered labour management relationship to be like the analogy he gives of a hockey game with the players going all out and the referee's stepping in on occasion to change the rules, or to impose the rules and hopefully the game goes on.

I'm not criticizing analogy. I've looked upon labour management more than just a brief exchange as though it's a game that's over a time period — more like a marriage where partners are wedded for a lifetime and where a referee cannot be called on occasion to blow the whistle and pick up the puck and change sticks. They both have to live in the same house. The teams don't travel home when the game is over. They must reside together for the rest of their lives. It's a working relationship.

I'm no expert in labour management relationship, but I've had some experience in marriage counselling and let me tell you that's the toughest job in the world — trying to get two partners who have a love-hate relationship going to sit down and come up with some common answers to problems that are common to both of them.

We will not see the end of strikes in British Columbia. I wish we could but I'm being realistic, we'll probably have strikes. We'll not see the end of emotion running rampant during tense situations when people are in dispute, because emotions do run rampant when people are in dispute.

[ Page 129 ]

If you want any example of that, bring in a contentious piece of legislation. We have it here. But we're in a far more amiable experience here. We don't have the frustrations as pointed out by the Member from Kamloops (Mr. Anderson) and so well added to by the Member from West Vancouver Howe-Sound (Mr. Williams).

We don't know what goes on in people's hearts and minds when they get all chewed up in some kind of experience that they aren't able to articulate. They aren't able to explain. But they feel it. When somebody feels something is wrong that feeling becomes a fact. And that goes for both labour and management.

I have great confidence in the Minister of Labour. I wouldn't have asked him to do the job if I didn't have. But I think that there is no more sensitive portfolio in terms of my experience than the poor guy that gets stuck with being Minister of Labour in this province.

He smiles, and you know we will welcome all amendments, we will peruse the, we have to make a decision whether or not they're acceptable to us as government. We don't have a closed mind about any of the directions we wish to go in and as of all Members of all parties said what we're really looking for is flexibility.

I wasn't a very good marriage counselor. I gave it up very early because I found it the most frustrating kind of work with people that I had ever experienced. And if I use the same analogy I hope that my labour Minister doesn't suffer the same frustrations I suffered as marriage counselor. Nonetheless, that's his task. I think all of us can make it easier.

It's not been an easy road with me as leader of this party with the trade union movement, I'll be frank about it. I had my difficulties, publicly, privately. It's not been an easy road with me with industry. I've had most of my difficulties with them publicly. But nonetheless we are here to govern.

We are making this move very quickly, because management and labour have indicated that the Mediation Commission is a failure and as my friend the Minister of Highways said perhaps the best way to move forward is to take one step back. That's what we are doing. We are going to be responsible when crises come — as they will — and we be criticized — as we will. We will expect that we will weather those storms as best we can. But I just want to say in conclusion that I have felt both happy and sad about some of the tasks I've had as Premier, but one of the happiest moments was receiving the letters and the phone calls from prominent citizens in this province who have said, publicly and privately, that they want to cooperate for the sake of British Columbia and that I appreciate very, very much.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. After listening to the Premier….

MR. SPEAKER: What's the point of order please?

MR. CHABOT: The point of order is that the Premier made certain statements relative to amendments to this bill. We have presented amendments on the order paper and we would like very much to support the legislation, but unless those amendments which take certain powers away from the Minister are accepted we are in a very difficult position….

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Just a moment, just a moment…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you "just a moment."

MR. CHABOT: Will someone adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House?

[ Page 130 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The matter of amendments and whether they're accepted or not, you can do it outside the House but — accept it or not — you can do it outside the House, but not as a point of order. The Hon. the Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've listened with great interest to the contribution that the various Members of the House had to make to the debate. There were those that I thought were beneficial. There were those which the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) made. You know what I liked about his address? Actually nothing, Mr. Speaker, not a thing because I think he indulged in the same type of inflammatory statement in this debate that he was prone to use in his position as Minister of Labour. Certainly, that's partially responsible for the sorry situation that exists in British Columbia today, in labour management relations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm somewhat amused by the Member for Oak Bay, (Mr. Wallace) the provisional interim or whatever leader of the Conservative Party. He tries to play "Mr. Clean" apparently and he hedges on the compulsory aspect, the sweeping powers that the Minister has taken and so on.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to remind him, Mr. Speaker, that when he joined the Social Credit Party, and ran for that party and sat as a Member of the House, it was with the full knowledge that the Minister, the government of that day, had all the powers to which he now objects so strenuously. He certainly lent himself to it for a number of years before he made his long trek across the House.

Now a number of things have come up that were criticized, about the amendment that was brought in, or the legislation that was brought in. Particular criticism, particular attention was given to the alleged sweeping powers, new powers that were given to the Minister.

There were various epithets used to describe these powers, "astounding," "tremendous" and so on, and I think it's rather astounding that certain Members of this House who have sat here for a number of years were so ignorant of the legislation that existed on the statute books of the province.

I would like to draw your attention to section 44 of the Mediation Commission Act. It reads as follows: "The commission or any person who has been authorized for such purpose in writing by the commission, may without any other warrant than this section at any time during regular working hours enter a building, ship, vessel, factory, workshop, place of premises of any kind where in work is being, or has been done, or commenced by employees, or in which an employer carries on business, or any matter or thing is taking place or has taken place concerning the matters referred to the commission, and may inspect and view any work, material, machinery, appliance or article therein."

Now, it's shocking enough to me that the various leaders of the small splinter parties didn't seem to recognize this legislation was on the books, but it's completely unforgivable that the former Minister of Labour occupied this office for some 8 months and didn't even seem aware that this power was contained in the legislation.

I think he has exposed himself not only as one who gets up and makes shallow and inflammatory statements, waving his arms with no content whatsoever, but he has exposed himself as one who is totally unfamiliar with the powers that he had under his office.

No wonder the province was in a mess. No wonder we had chaos in industrial relations in the province, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I might just expand that line just a little bit further. Some of my legal friends got involved in the discussion as to the powers that exist under the new Mediation Services Act. Let me point out to them that similar powers exist under a variety of legislation in the province. The Apprenticeship and Tradesmen Qualification Act — read section 18. The Department of Labour Act — read section 9. The Hours of Work Act — section 9. Department of Labour Act. The Male and Female Minimum Wage Acts, the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Department of Labour Act, section

[ Page 131 ]

7. Board of Industrial Relations. Minimum Wage Act, section 11, and on and on it goes as a whole vast variety of different legislation which contains identical or similar powers.

How on earth would you enforce the provisions of this legislation, unless you had the power to police the Acts as they exist? It's a bunch of nonsense based on synthetically artificial arguments and I think that they are not worthy of further discussion really.

I might point out too, Mr. Speaker, that these provisions are certainly not peculiar to the Province of British Columbia, certainly not peculiar to the Department of Labour. The Public Inquiries Act provides similar powers to a variety of other departments of government. It is a little bit shocking that the learned friends who lead the various opposition parties wouldn't be familiar with what goes on in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they're not.

HON. MR. KING: Oh, come on! Mr. Speaker, we outlined the intent of this Act in a very brief statement that I made when I introduced this for second reading. Apparently, my Hon. friend from that great industrial riding of West Vancouver–Howe Sound wasn't listening, because we indicated that we wanted to bring in new legislation, not my philosophy, and I would suggest for the edification of the Hon. gentlemen across the way that I've had more experience in the work-a-day conditions of the employer and the employee in the province than he has. But I'm not prepared to foist my philosophy on the people who must live with it.

I indicated that we intend to set up an adequate hearing process, whereby the people who are going to be compelled within the framework of the new laws have some input into them. I'm not prepared to accept that the politician should hand down dictums from above and say "that's what you must live with." This is the same bag that the previous government fell into, I think it's unacceptable to this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: So why don't you do it?

HON. MR. KING: Why don't we do it, he said. That's beautiful, Mr. Speaker: "Why don't you do it?" You know, I think he must be impressed with, wasn't it the 30 days of action, or the 60 days of action that one of the Liberal Prime Ministers started out with and ended up with 30 days of chaos.

Now we would like to have a little more detailed look at the legislative programme that we are going to bring in. We would like to involve the people in it who are going to be committed to live with the legislative programme we bring in.

I think it's reasonable to go about the organization of this type of programme in a reasonable way. If the Hon. gentleman expects it in 35 days, then perhaps he can wait until he has the good fortune to form a government in the next century sometime and pursue that programme. Now, there is one other thing that I just wanted to comment on, the former Minister of Labour made a number of statements that I really can't take too seriously. He called me a number of names personally and you know about the state of my constitution as to whether I had courage or not.

Really, I find no area of the bill that is really relevant to that type of a consideration, but I can tell the Hon. Member for Columbia River this, Mr. Speaker, that when the day arrives that I need an armed escort or an escort of commissionaires from the Douglas Building to the Legislature, I'll resign as Minister of Labour.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, if that's a reflection on courage or something else, but certainly I look for something better in the future. Now we have suggested that we wanted cooperation from the other side of the House. I accept some of the points that the Opposition has made and

[ Page 132 ]

certainly some of the people on our side of the House have given some serious thought and made some valid points.

I'm prepared to talk and I'm not prepared to be stampeded into fast action in setting a stage for a new labour relations Act in this province. My friend from South Peace I believe, queried me on the provisions contained under existing legislation or legislation as it will exist, should we be confronted with a major strike in the province now.

I might point out Mr. Speaker, that we are simply returning to square one. We are returning to exactly where we are before the Mediation Commission was established. We have people within the Department of Labour who are very capable in terms of acting as mediators and so on. We have the flexibility under the amendment posed before you now to provide the services necessary to mediate and assist in resolving labour disputes.

I might point out to my friend from Vancouver-Howe Sound that his concern about the research facilities of the Mediation Commission, I think they are certainly worthwhile. However, we do have —  I forget which Liberal it was, that introduced it, the Member for Point Grey then — we do have within the Department of Labour a research branch which although it hasn't been expanded and utilized in the past it is certainly my intention to activate as a broad function in the future. I can say that this is a very useful organ that has been partly emasculated by the narrow policies of our predecessor. It hasn't been able to play the role that it should have been designing new policies for the future.

Now I think the last area that I would comment on, Mr. Speaker, before I close the amendment is the manner in which the announcement of this legislation was dealt with and the effect that it has had on the three commissioners over in Vancouver.

The Opposition again wants the best of two worlds. I know that they must play the role of scrutinizing and criticizing. I accept the fact. Can you imagine the cry that would have emanated from the opposition benches, Mr. Speaker, had the full intent, the full provisions of this legislation has been announced prior to the convening of the House? Can you imagine how the experienced legislators on that side would have shook their fingers at us and accused us of contempt of parliament for baring our legislative programme before it was presented to the House in the usual manner?

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, further that the Mediation Commission is not terminated as yet. It's not terminated as yet. We are in the position where the legislation contained in the Mediation Commission Services Act becomes law by proclamation. Therefore, each section is subject to proclamation and I can tell the House this, Mr. Speaker, I've said it publicly before — that I intend to have a dialogue with the commissioners and the chairman. Not only the commission, but all those conciliation officers and the office staff, who worked in that particular department.

It seems a little bit singularly unusual to me that the venom of the former Minister of Labour was all directed at the loss of jobs for commissioners, employed at $40,000 and $42,000, with no concern expressed for the secretary and the officers in that department.

A little bit shallow, Mr. Speaker, a little bit transparent, I think.

MR. CHABOT: Don't be a phony.

MR. SPEAKER: That is unparliamentary. I ask the Member to withdraw it immediately.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't say he was a phony, all I said was "don't be a phony."

HON. MR. KING: I wouldn't emulate the former Minister for anything, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't think of it.

[ Page 133 ]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that we have every intention of getting together with the Mediation Commission officers, with all the employers who were involved in that particular department and discussing the termination that will take place and the possibility of employment in other areas and so on. All these things will be taken into consideration. Adequate opportunity will be given to discuss their attitudes with us.

I think the straw-man that was built by the former Minister was something that was done for the edification of the Press galleries rather than for its validity and I don't think that it is worthy of any further comment, Mr. Speaker.

I think that this deals fairly well with it. Some of the other speakers have indicated the direction that we want to go. I have no hide bound ideas, nothing sacred in this area as far as I'm concerned. I want input, not only from labour and management, from the other side of the House. I welcome it if it is reasonable and if it's constructive.

At the same time I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I've already had dialogue with many of the business leaders in British Columbia, and many of the trade unions. I have found no defenders of the previous government's type of legislation under the Mediations Commission Act.

I have a book here that I could go through — press clippings of the various indictments that have been heaped on the Mediation Commission. I want to point this out, I don't think it's the mediation commissioners, as such, that were the failure. I think it was the structure that was set up by the government; I think it was the statements made by the former Minister, the whole climate that was developed that rendered the commission a failure. So, I think that we're heading in the right direction. We want to welcome the input of every area of the community, the public, as well as labour management and the members of this House.

I feel this is a fairly good outline at this time. I don't propose to be stampeded into announcing the exact organization of the commission or whatever will be set up to conduct hearings. Rather this will be announced in due course and in consultation with the people involved.

I now move second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS-42

NAYS-10

Bill No. 5 read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion….

[ Page 134 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Should be "on Monday." (Laughter)

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House that we will continue with the same order of business as outlined yesterday. And I'd like to file answers to questions standing in my name on the order paper. Are there any other Minister's questions?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the Hansard which has been circulated recently to us and thank your Honour for the speed with which this came out. I think all Members of the House appreciate the fact that it's taken only a few days which previously took many months. I trust that an oral question period is not far behind.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in response to the oral answer period I move that the House…

MR. SPEAKER: No wait a minute, Mr. Leader. There is one statement I wish to make before the House adjourns.

Beside paying tribute to the dedicated legislative staff including the recording staff in the House here, the Hansard clerks, the Hansard editor —  Mr. Chazottes — and Mr. Macdonald, the Queen's Printer, and his staff for their labour in producing this Hansard today which I think an historic occasion.(applause) I think that conveys very well the gratitude of the Members for their work.

Now on a more serious vein in regard to the order paper.

I've had now the opportunity to examine the questions placed on the order paper since the commencement of this session and wish to make several observations for the guidance and assistance of all Members.

Questions on the order paper are specifically authorized by standing order 47 which states in part as follows:

"Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from the Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs. But in putting any such question no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated."

It would be difficult indeed to improve upon the language employed by a former Speaker of this House, Mr. Speaker Davie, who canvassed the matter in considerable detail in a decision appearing in the Journals of the House, March 2, 1932.

The learned Speaker concludes that the question of procedure is founded upon the desirability of obtaining from ministers and Members information not otherwise obtainable.

Mr. Speaker Davie further enumerates 46 rules applicable to questions, and in order to assist all Hon. Members, I have made available a limited number of copies of those rules. In any event the Members may find the rules in the Journals of the Legislative Assembly 1932, at page 22.

I have applied these rules to the questions appearing on the order paper of October 20, and have the following observations to make.

Question No. 2 is a question based on an extract from a newspaper which in itself offends the first rule outlined by Mr. Speaker Davie.

Generally speaking, statements made outside the House through any of the news media are not within the knowledge of the House, and accordingly cannot be made the foundation for a question directed to a minister or a member of the House.

These remarks apply with equal force to questions No. 3, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 34r 35, 36, 40, 41, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66, and 67.

Question No. 9. This question is based on an assumption, and for this reason is out of order, and will be struck from the order paper. The same flaw is applicable to questions No. 10, 11, 15, 24, 61, and 62. For the reasons stated these will be treated in the same manner as question No. 9.

[ Page 135 ]

Question No. 12. This question raises matters of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question — and here see 1932 Journals, page 24. The question, in addition, would also appear to offend rule No. 29 as quoted by Mr. Speaker Davie.

Question No. 13 and part 2 is, I think, out of order on the ground that it presumes the Minister has the information requested, when I think it probably should go to another Minister who is in charge of statistics. But I leave that one on the order paper and hope the Minister can deal with it.

Question No. 21 is predicated on a purported fact of which the House could have no knowledge.

Questions No. 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 69 and 70 are irregular in that the questions enumerated by implication are asking what advice a Minister proposes to give the Crown. See 1932 Journals, page 24.

The authorities are clear to the effect that the Speaker may rule out any questions which he deems to be out of order in the same manner he deals with irregularities in motions, and amendments. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the offending questions will be struck from the order paper.

I am supplying the Members who wish to ask questions with the required information that they need to see that the questions are framed properly, and I am not in any sense asking you to restrain yourself from asking questions properly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I wonder if I could ask if the clerks would be available as they were in the past when we were in opposition to assist us to frame our questions correctly.

MR. SPEAKER: I may say that the clerks are always at your disposal any time to consult with, when they are available and not engaged in the House. If you want their assistance in framing questions properly I might add that it was a practice to have the assistant of the Opposition prior to this time meet with the clerks for that purpose.

MR. CHABOT: Just one point. It appears to be a new direction taken by the Chair, I was wondering if it could be possible to get this statement that you read to the House as quickly as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hansard — it will be in Hansard.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, but that might not be for a couple or three days.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5 p.m.