[ Page 1365 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of supply: Department of Labour estimates.

Mr. Chabot — 1365

Hon. Mr. King — 1371

Mr. Chabot — 1374

Hon. Mr. King — 1375

Mr. McGeer — 1375

Hon. Mr. King — 1382

Mr. McGeer — 1382

Hon. Mr. King — 1383

Mr. Wallace — 1383

Hon. Mr. King — 1385

Mr. Wallace — 1385

Mr. Chabot — 1386

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1973

The House met at 8:15 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I have been in receipt of a very unusual gift. I would like to share the pleasure of this gift with the MLAs before these pictures are hung in my office.

This is the 75th anniversary of this building being opened as a Legislative Assembly. This week two photographs were brought to my office as a gift; one of which is a picture of the inside of the chamber, just as it was when it was completed before the first sitting. Another picture is one of the building from the outside, just when the building was completed 75 years ago. So with the permission of the House I would like to pass them around and let the Members view them — then return them to me.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Who was the donor?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who was the donor? He must remain anonymous. A friend. A friend of the Legislative Assembly.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

Vote 124: Minister's Office, $72,978.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a pleasure for me to take my place and discuss labour with the rookie Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a pleasure for us to see you over there. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: I'm going to find it rather difficult to be as critical as some of his friends are, because it wasn't too long ago one of his close friends said that the Minister is a walking disaster looking for a place to happen.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: However, it's also difficult to criticize because the Minister, since he's been in office, has done nothing, absolutely nothing. So it is difficult to be critical.

Also, the fact that the matter of labour relations is under scrutiny in the province at this time makes it rather difficult to be critical of the existing policies because they might be changed maybe some time in the future; maybe not on the schedule that the Minister originally gave to the people of British Columbia — that two or three years from now we'll have amendments, and so forth.

He's hastened his decision on the basis of pressure from some of his friends.

I was rather amazed at the very early dates on the part of the Minister in which he related to the Press what his position would be while he's the Minister of Labour. While speaking to a reporter in the community of Revelstoke, he had this to say:

"Revelstoke-Slocan MLA Bill King has only been a cabinet minister for two weeks, but already he says he is becoming a seasoned politician because he has learned how to say, 'no comment', to questions by reporters.

"Mr. King admitted the reporters have a job to do, but it becomes a bit much when every other phone call is from some newspaper, radio or television reporter. He has now appointed Dale Compton as his executive assistant, who happened to be one of his chief campaign men in the last election. In Mr. King's words, 'the role of Mr. Compton is to keep those reporters off my back. That will be his role.' "

Whenever in the future you read a newspaper story, or hear a broadcast which goes something like, "sources from the Labour Minister's office said this or that," you'll know that source is Mr. Compton. It doesn't come from the Minister; it's Mr. Compton. I want to know, Mr. Minister, who is setting policy in your office, you or your political appointee? Who's setting policy in your office?

"Trying to keep reporters off his neck doesn't seem consistent with Mr. King's objectives as Revelstoke-Slocan's MLA or B.C.'s labour Minister. He said unequivocally that he wants to establish better communications and better dialogue with his constituents, and between labour and management."

There's an inconsistency very early in your career as Minister of Labour. I think your role really as Minister of Labour is one of mediator between two forces — organized labour force and the management force — as well as ensuring that those people in British Columbia who are not organized, who are workers in this province, are protected as well. Not one to say, "No comment." "I want to keep this guy and that guy off my back."

Not too long ago, in August of last year, there

[ Page 1366 ]

were some policy decisions brought down, and it wasn't in the Watkins manifesto; it was in the newspaper article or the "Democrat" or whatever you call it — "New Deal for People" — and it had this to say on labour-management negotiations.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Get it right for a change. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: We just heard from the Premier's shadow. You know, that Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) shadows the Premier everywhere. When the Premier was outside this afternoon, he was right behind him. When the Premier was sitting here this afternoon, he was right behind him. Is he your bodyguard or something, Mr. Premier? That Member for Vancouver Centre, he's all over. I saw him on TV right behind you.

MR. LAUK: That's the only way I could get on TV.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Shadow knows.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Member, if you're feeling shut out, come down to my office and we'll talk about it.

MR. CHABOT: …I wouldn't be caught in the same company with you, Mr. Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. CHABOT: You're the man who believes in socking it to the farmers.

Now we're back to policy statements on the part of the New Democratic Party, relative to labour management. One of their policy statements was that there shall be longer vacations, and shorter work days, or work weeks, will be encouraged to maintain and expand employment opportunities in the face of automation.

I'm wondering if the Minister, when he stands, will tell us what kind of a programme he is preparing to ensure that these particular objectives of the socialist Government will be carried out.

Now, "labour-management relations will be firmly based on free collective bargaining. Free from the interference of governments or courts."

I've heard from the Minister, which I think was probably a misquote, but he did certainly lead a group of labour leaders to believe that he is looking at the possibility of eliminating court injunctions. I want the Minister to say very clearly whether he is giving some consideration to this.

I think an injunction is a very necessary device in order to protect personal property or businesses and public order as well. I think there's justification in many instances for the securing of a court injunction.

I'm wondering what the Minister's attitude is relative to a statement that appeared in the "Democrat." It says that labour negotiations should be free from interference by government or the courts.

We've heard a lot about the Sandringham dispute. The Minister, when he first became Minister, became a bit of a tiger, and he was going to resolve that dispute.

I think I should go way back to 1971 when the then Leader of the Opposition moved a resolution in this House. The resolution reads as follows:

"Moved that the Select Standing Committee on Labour be authorized to investigate the labour dispute presently existing at Sandringham Private Hospital, with full power to call witnesses, examine hospital staff, financial records, employee records, trade union officers concerned, the National Nursing Homes Ltd. management personnel and directors, and to make recommendations respecting the said dispute and the future of the said hospital to the Minister of Labour and if need be to the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance."

Not too long after the motion was put on the order paper, there were several NDP MLAs of the day, who are now Cabinet Ministers, who did demonstrate in front of the Sandringham Private Hospital to draw attention to the plight of the workers there.

I'm wondering why there's such inaction on the part of the Select Standing Committee on Labour during the current session if their concern at that particular time was genuine. Why hasn't the matter been referred to the Select Standing Committee for examination?

You were concerned two years ago about this dispute. Where is your concern now? The Minister certainly did make an attempt. He came in like a storm on the question of Sandringham Hospital. He wrote a fairly abusive letter to the owners of Sandringham Hospital, in which it said:

"I have outlined in some detail the extensive efforts that have been made to negotiate a collective agreement with your company by the trade union which is legally certified to represent your employees, because I am deeply concerned about your apparent lack of responsibility."

"I have outlined in some detail the extensive efforts that have been made to negotiate a collective agreement with your company by the trade union which is legally certified to represent your employees, because I am deeply concerned about your apparent lack of responsibility."

Your apparent lack of responsibility.

He called the owner of Sandringham Hospital over to Victoria to confer with him. Mr. Shepherd found himself too busy in Vancouver to come over to Victoria to talk to the Minister about this labour

[ Page 1367 ]

dispute, so the Minister packed his bags and went over to Vancouver to discuss the matter with Mr. Shepherd.

Really very little has happened since he has been over there in Vancouver. He's had a brief meeting here in Victoria with the parties concerned, CUPE and Mr. Shepherd or his representatives.

The Minister was very determined at that particular time to ensure resolution of this longstanding labour dispute. However, he's changed his mind very drastically since that time. When questioned by newspaper reporters, he's had this to say:

"Suggestions for settling the Sandringham Hospital strike have not been accepted by the hospital, Labour Minister Bill King disclosed today. 'The proposal which we had for their consideration was not accepted. But there is a possibility of another approach being undertaken.'

"King said he prefers not to give any details, because there is still the possibility of part of the proposal being accepted and public discussion would not assist the matter."

In other words, "No comment."

" 'We are at present considering the whole matter in considering a new course of action. I expect to talk to the union in the next day or so.' "

That statement was made some time in the month of January. We haven't heard too much from the Minister on the question of Sandringham, and I'm wondering whether tonight he'll be able to relate to us just where the dispute presently stands and whether there is any possibility of its resolution.

I know it's an extremely difficult dispute. It's not a dispute that can be readily or quickly settled, in my opinion. However, I'm bringing this to the attention of the Minister because he came in like a tiger when he first became Minister and he was going to settle this terrible dispute in which he criticized the former Minister. He had this to say:

"King said he would reserve judgement on Shepherd's role in the dispute but criticized former Labour Minister Chabot for allegedly 'failing to involve his department more actively in the dispute.' "

It's quite obvious that the Minister has not familiarized himself with the correspondence and what had taken place by officials of the Department of Labour, because I'm sure they would confirm to him that they had been more involved prior to his becoming Minister than in the preceding three months of his occupying that role.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: It's a very difficult dispute.

Unfortunately, the Minister's attempt at getting a labour inquiry throughout the province was scuttled by certain people. Nevertheless he recouped fairly well from that ordeal and the lashing given to him by certain people. He has appointed a three-man advisory board to examine the labour laws and to make recommendations to him on things that should be changed in the labour field in British Columbia.

I am concerned, really, with the present approach you have taken on this matter. You appear to support certain labour spokesmen on the statements they have made in which they criticized public hearings and public participation in the question of new labour laws in this province.

I think that every individual in this province has a right to be heard when it comes to holding hearings. It shouldn't be a closed affair between labour and management. Every individual in this province has a right to be heard. Every individual in this province has an interest in labour disputes, because they're affected indirectly in many instances, Some labour leaders have said, "We don't want any input from kooks." Unless the Minister involves these people, gives them an opportunity to speak out and be heard, I have to conclude that he subscribes to the statement made by certain labour leaders.

I hope the Minister will tell us what steps he proposes to take to ensure that there is public participation in these hearings which he is holding and which, at the present moment at least, only labour and management are being invited to attend.

Every individual in this province is concerned about what is taking place in the labour field.

In British Columbia during the year 1972 the average labour force was 949,000 people. There was a growth in the labour force of 4.2 per cent, which means 38,000 new people joined the labour force in our province. But there was a serious shortfall in our ability to create jobs. We were able to generate only a 3.7 per cent factor of new jobs in British Columbia, which means only 31,000 new jobs were created.

Certainly I must say that unemployment was high in 1972. But I am fearful really that unemployment will accelerate in 1973. There are clear-cut indications of this.

When one looks at the statistics in the month of January, 1973 — an actual figure of 9.9 per cent of the labour force in this province were unemployed; 95,000 people were seeking work. It's down to 8.3 per cent at the moment; still an unacceptable percentage of people unemployed in British Columbia; substantially higher than the comparable month of the previous year.

I am concerned, and I think the Minister of Labour should concern himself with the matter of job creation in this province. I think that he should tell Members of his Government, the Finance Minister (Hon, Mr. Barrett), the "Takeover Minister," that he is concerned on the question of job creation; that unless you're able to attract investment capital into

[ Page 1368 ]

British Columbia, you're not going to create very many jobs.

This session is a clear indication to me that there is going to be a decrease in the availability of jobs in this province. I hope that the Government will take steps to rectify some of the irresponsible statements they have made that do jeopardize our ability to encourage and to promote and to attract investment capital in this province which does create jobs.

Whether you realize it or not, investment capital generates jobs. I'm wondering what project the Minister has for job creation; whether the Minister can tell us what he sees in his crystal ball as far as what the unemployment picture will be for 1973 in British Columbia.

In 1972 there was an increase in the number of elevator inspectors from 11 to 14. There was a request from the department which suggested that an addition of three elevator inspectors would be sufficient to catch up on the backlog of inspections and to meet the ever-growing needs of inspecting new elevators that are being constructed in the province.

I have been rather appalled lately to have gone into elevators to find that some had not been inspected for upwards of three years, with an addition of three inspectors to the staff. I am wondering whether the Minister can tell us what the problem is and whether there is a need for additional elevator inspectors.

There was an addition to the force of three inspectors, which at the time appeared to be reasonable to catch up on the backlog of uninspected elevators in the province.

We hear a lot about the Labour Relations Board these days. There has been a tremendous amount of publicity in the news and no doubt a fair amount of pressure on the Minister to fire the present Labour Relations Board. The suggestions have come from many corners. I am wondering whether the Minister is bowing to these pressures, whether he is considering the removal of existing Labour Relations Board, and whether he is considering the appointment of a complete new slate of members to the board and making the board a full-time board.

Also when discussing the Labour Relations Board, I am wondering whether the Minister could tell me: would the certification of a nonexistent unit be considered an appropriate unit for collective bargaining? A very simple question. I'm wondering whether the Minister, in view of statements that are being made publicly these days, for reasons for decisions from the board, is considering an expansion on the present reasons which are given. I'm wondering whether the Minister has given consideration — whether it is the present board or whether it is a new, fully constituted board of new members, full-time — to allowing a Canadian union member to be on that board?

I personally think there should be an expansion of the board to include a Canadian union member. The Canadian unions, whether the Member for Vancouver Centre likes it or not, are here to stay, and they are here to expand.

There is a matter which is before the board at this particular time on the question of representation of a group of workers at Trail, Cominco, Kimberley and Benson Lake. From all indications it would appear that the Canadian Workers' Union is in a fairly strong position to gain representation of these workers. I am wondering, in view of the tremendous upsurge, whether recognition will be given to this union force on the Labour Relations Board.

The Minister has received a letter about ten days ago from an individual….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there is a chipmunk in the back chirping away. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: There's a dictator there too. The commissar. The commissar of highways. That's what you are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: Commissar of everything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Commissar of insurance.

MR. CHABOT: When are we going to see the light in Golden?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, there is a threat from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — threatening to take away my traffic light in Golden. Threatening to take it away. He promised it this afternoon.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: I am wondering if you could relate to me, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, whether you have replied and what information you have conveyed to the individual who wrote to you on March 5, when he said:

"I, as an employee of Wagner Engineering Limited of Vancouver, recently learned that the

[ Page 1369 ]

Marine Workers and Boilermakers Industrial Union, local 1, has applied for and received certification at my employers. No vote was held. Why? I believe that much less than 50 per cent of the employees actually want a union."

This is just a matter of opinion on his part.

"Please write me and explain why a vote was not taken."

I hope that when the Minister stands he will be able to elaborate on that particular matter. I did miss a couple of points in the Watkins manifesto. The Watkins manifesto, which was presented to the people of British Columbia in bits and pieces last August, suggested that the Department of Labour would eliminate certain sections of the Labour Relations Act which they considered discriminatory, and certain sections of the Trade Unions Act.

I wonder whether the Minister is giving some consideration to changing these, whether he is asking for input from these three investigators on this very question, and, if there is no input from these three investigators, whether he is going to allow input for the deletion of these particular sections from other than B.C. Federation of Labour and other unions. It has an effect on many other groups in the province.

Now, with regard to the Hours of Work Act, there has been a lot of talk in recent years, really, about the shortening of the work week. The "4-40's" it's called — the four-day, 40-hour week. They are experimenting in many areas with the three-day, 36-hour week. Some of these reports are coming back — most positive reports — that indicate to me that there has been in certain areas an increase in productivity and an increase in the morale of the workers. The Minister said he believes that many of the problems of the workers come from dissatisfaction with the monotony of their job and that there should be job satisfaction. I am wondering whether the Minister is prepared to allow the free choice of unions and management jointly to decide whether they want to go for these shorter hours or shorter work weeks.

I know that there are certain provisions in the Hours of Work Act, through the Board of Industrial Relations, that tend to be slightly inflexible. I'm wondering whether the Minister is prepared to bring about legislative changes to make the Act a little more flexible so that we don't have to go through the lengthy procedure that is presently necessary in order to get an approval of the shorter work week.

Consider the number of conflicts that exist on the job site and the jurisdictional disputes that take place between the various unions. Is the Minister proposing any changes there? Because I strongly believe that a union member has the right to belong to the union of his choice. He shouldn't be forced out by any section or item of a collective agreement which has been entered into by an employer and another union. He should have the right to exist, regardless of what union he belongs to.

There has been a fair amount of evidence that unions have been destroyed by not being allowed on particular job sites. I'm wondering whether he is looking at this particular problem.

The union hiring hall is of course another area which I have brought up on different occasions. I think the union hiring hall in some instances works very effectively. In some other instances, not as effectively. There is room for intimidation and harassment of the union members. You better believe there is. In some instances we find that the union hiring hall is used as a means of discipline of union members. Also, it's used as a means of punishing contractors.

I'll cite you an example.

In 1970, a small electrical contractor was forced out of business because — I'm not going to tell you which union — he refused to supply tradesmen.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: Local 213, IBEW. He refused to supply tradesmen to the company, despite legal action taken against the union. The appeal court upheld the right of the union to withhold men. Further, the union hiring hall practices have been used as harassing tactics against contractors in order to achieve union objectives which are not covered by the collective agreement.

I am wondering whether the Minister would give some consideration to implementing a part of the Woods Task Force on Labour Relations, which stated as follows:

"Where a hiring hall operates in an industry as the effective avenue to employment in that industry, it should be operated by the Canada Manpower Service, "

I would change that to the Department of Labour —

"with the assistance and cooperation of the affected employer or unions through a joint labour-management advisory committee."

That was a recommendation brought in after an exhaustive study of labour relations in the Province of Ontario. In my opinion it appears to be fairly reasonable suggestion. I am wondering what the Minister's attitude is on that.

We hear from certain labour leaders that they want to see changes in existing labour legislation in this province so that they can get on with the job of organizing the unorganized. I am wondering whether the Minister is considering any changes in legislation that would allow this type of approach to organizing which is being requested. I am sure many requests have been made to you in your office.

You have to take into consideration as well that there are people in British Columbia who do not want to be organized, who do not want to belong to a

[ Page 1370 ]

union. I think their wishes should be protected as well.

I think that the labour laws of British Columbia as they presently stand are sufficiently flexible to allow union organization. The proof of that really is that British Columbia is the most highly unionized jurisdiction on the North American continent. So if there have been roadblocks, they're only hypothetical roadblocks, in my opinion. Certainly they are. Because otherwise we wouldn't have the highest union membership of any area on the North American continent — 42 per cent of the workers in this province are unionized.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: 28 per cent across Canada. 42 per cent in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at Sweden; look at France.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, look at it.

MR. CHABOT: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: You look at it.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Minister, I have a copy of a telegram here which indicates very clearly that there has been a violation of the Labour Relations Act. I won't read the entire telegram, but I will read parts of it, It was a telegram sent to the recording secretaries of various unions in the province by Mr. Ray Haynes, and he said: "BY CONVENTION DECISION…"

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Are you insinuating the Minister of Labour is not concerned about violations of the labour laws of this province? Are you concerned?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: This just happened. This was a telegram sent on July 25:

"BY CONVENTION DECISION THE FEDERATION WILL BE ASSISTING TRADE UNIONISTS AND OTHER NDP CANDIDATES. THE ASSISTANCE MUST BE PROVIDED WITHOUT DELAY. WE URGE YOU TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FEDERATION'S POLITICAL ACTION FUND WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.

TO ENABLE US TO GET THE BALL ROLLING WE WOULD ASK YOU TO ADVISE BY RETURN WIRE WHAT WE MAY TENTATIVELY EXPECT FROM YOUR UNION."

In view of the fact that I raised this matter in the Attorney General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) estimates and he appears to be unwilling to take action against this counselling of violation of the laws of this province, I have to consider him derelict in his duties in failing to take action. The only reason he is not taking action is because they happen to be his friends.

Section 9 of the Labour Relations Act, subsection C(i):

"No trade union and no person acting on behalf of a trade union shall, directly or indirectly, contribute to or expend on behalf of any political party or to or on behalf of any candidate for political office any moneys deducted from an employee's wages under subsection 1, or a collective agreement, or paid as a condition of membership in the trade union."

There was no assignment of union contributions by the members. There wasn't sufficient time. There was no assignment. They had to have the money within two weeks. Yet the Attorney General closes his eyes to the violation of this law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you return to the estimates?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): You're attacking Leslie Peterson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you return to the estimates please?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I wasn't the Attorney General then.

MR. CHABOT: No, the telegram just came to our attention shortly after — July 25, 1972. I am wondering whether the Attorney General is willing to reveal the type of funds that have been contributed by various unions for the campaigns for the NDP.

Mr. Minister of Labour, I'm getting back to you. I am wondering whether there is any way that you'd bring this to the attention of the Attorney General that there has been a violation of the Labour Relations Act by the B.C. Federation of Labour in counselling to violate the laws of this province.

I am wondering whether you are willing to ask the Attorney General to take action against these political activists.

Now I want to say just a couple of words on the question of apprenticeship in industrial training. I'm gratified to see the increase in the number of people that are being trained in this programme. There's been a substantial increase from 1971 to 1971. I am, however, concerned about the present procedure of indenturing apprentices to joint apprenticeship committees. The coordinators, of course, are responsible for finding employment for these apprentices. I think

[ Page 1371 ]

that in many instances, because of this particular procedure, the employers are not giving the type of attention or interest to these apprentices that they would if the apprentice were indentured to them as employers.

In the case of apprentices who are indentured to these joint committees, the coordinator who is responsible for the placement of them finds sometimes when the employee is finished that he is returned back to the committee for placement elsewhere. I don't think there is the type of attachment by the employer to the apprentice that should take place. This is because of the joint apprenticeship committees. I am wondering whether the Minister if giving some consideration to this.

Not only does it become frustrating for the apprentice being shifted from jobsite to jobsite — there is a fair amount of control over the number of apprentices that are allowed to enter into a programme, and there are many trades in British Columbia that are short of tradesmen. Yet we can't get apprentices to train, because there is an effort in certain of these committees to cut down on the number of apprentices that do take training. I don't think that's very good. Certainly they can ensure that the quality is better, but I don't think that we should close the gate to people who want to take training, especially in a day when we find the highest unemployment in British Columbia is of people in the ages from 14 to 24, people who need training and need it desperately in order to fit into the framework of gainful employment.

Although we've had a substantial increase in apprenticeship training in British Columbia, I don't believe that the number — which I think is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 9,500 — is really sufficient. We have a labour force in British Columbia of almost one million people, yet we find only approximately 9,500 apprentices in the training programme — less than one per cent. Really, in my opinion, that's not good enough. There should be a considerable improvement in this. I am wondering whether the Minister will examine the procedures of indenturing apprentices; whether he'll carry out a study. I think there should be a fairly comprehensive study of the needs of tradesmen in the various classifications of industry in British Columbia. I think with a full study on this very subject we could come to a conclusion as to the number of apprentices that are required in British Columbia, and that we could provide the necessary dollars and programmes and facilities to ensure that these people are trained so that our unemployment rolls will not be as high as they are at the present.

I have a few more questions. However, I've probably put out enough questions for the Minister now, and I'll just let him answer at the moment.

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

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Member for Columbia River says, he certainly did put out quite a large quantity of questions. I'm not sure the quality was all that impressive, but I'll try to answer the ones that I can make sense out of.

The Member devoted his initial time to analysing certain election material that was put out by the New Democratic Party in the last election. You know, I hardly think that this is an appropriate time to get into that type of analysis. I was hoping that perhaps we could expect a little bit more…yes, as the Premier says, the results of that campaign material proved quite satisfactory to this side of the House.

But really, Mr. Chairman, from someone who occupied the office of Minister of Labour for some time before the advent of this government I would have expected something a little more searching, something a little more penetrating, and something that indicated that the Member for Columbia River had some knowledge, some appreciation, of just what's involved in labour-management relations. Some of his questions obviously didn't do anything to heighten his credibility.

He brought up the Sandringham Hospital dispute. On that particular issue he went wrong right on the first issue he raised. He said that I had invited the owners of Sandringham to Victoria, that they had declined, and then I had trotted off to Vancouver to meet with them.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that I made no such trip to Vancouver. The owners of Sandringham did meet with me in my office in response to my call to them. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that this was the first time that any direct action had been taken by the Minister of Labour's office to bring the parties together in that dispute — first direct action.

I might add also that, prior to my assuming the office of Minister of Labour, the owners of Sandringham had been found guilty of failing to bargain collectively within the meaning of the Act. I think it's somewhat shocking that my predecessor failed, in spite of that finding, to even use his office or his influence to get a dialogue going between the union and the owners again.

So certainly, Mr. Chairman, while we haven't resolved the dispute, we have been actively and aggressively involved. We had had a series of meetings with both the union and management people, and we are still working on it, as a matter of fact.

Now I don't know what the Member for Columbia River would suggest. Well, perhaps that's not true. I do know what he would suggest; compulsory arbitration was the answer to all things for the former

[ Page 1372 ]

administration, but I don't think it's a way to bring lasting peace in industrial relations. Free collective bargaining is what's being exercised right now.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, we are debating the estimates of the Department of Labour today and, while I can understand somewhat of a preoccupation with farmers from the backbench across the way, I suggest that we address ourselves to the issue before us.

The Member for Columbia River stated further that the review of labour legislation which this department has undertaken has been met with some opposition. Certainly this is true. I certainly expect that I shall have disagreements with participants in the labour and in the management field as we go ahead, because that's the nature of this type of undertaking. We are dealing with human beings.

I would expect differences of opinion on legislation, on policies that should be undertaken and so on. But again, I really would have expected a bit of a more mature response from the former Minister. What does he want to do? Does he want to stir up controversy and destroy a chance for improving labour relations in the province? I wouldn't think so; so why get into a commentary on disputes that may have taken place in the newspaper between me and any element of the industrial relations world.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, will the Hon. Minister be seated. If there is no point of order, will the Member be seated.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I agree that the quality of this discussion could be a lot better; but after all, I am responding to the Member for Columbia River, so we have to understand the situation. (Laughter). He further indicated that in some way I no longer intended to pursue the policy which I enunciated of inviting input from all areas of labour, management and the public in a review of new legislation.

Now certainly there's been nothing issued from my department to indicate anything of that nature. As far as certain people in labour saying they didn't want input from kooks, well again, I can understand the Member for Columbia River objecting and being somewhat sensitive. But be that as it may, it's his prerogative.

Now, he moved on to unemployment and suggested that this department should be doing more to create employment. I'm not sure whether he was confused between the Department of Labour and the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce or not; but I think it is significant to note, Mr. Chairman, that there was in excess of 1 per cent decline in unemployment figures during this last month. I think that's certainly a good sign.

I might point out also that the Department of Labour, for the first time in history, is currently collaborating with the Department of Manpower and Immigration, with industry and with labour in setting up a new programme for special training in the woods industry in the province. Certainly I think this is a new initiative that was never displayed by the department before under that Member's stewardship.

Now he asked the question, "Could a non-existent union be certified?" Again, you know, I would think to most people in the House that would be pretty obvious. I don't know how a non-existent element could make an application. It's just an incredible question. As I commented the other night, I don't know how you can expect to get an answer when you don't obviously know an intelligent question.

In referring to the content of the Labour Relations Board, or the composition of the Labour Relations Board; yes, there's been criticism of the Labour Relations Board. I have announced in response to criticism of this nature, as well as criticisms of a wider variety, that we are undertaking a review; that we are prepared to listen to the criticisms and the recommendations of labour unions, management groups and so on.

Until this review takes place, and until we have analysed the input which we've received and come up with an alternative system, why, I'm quite satisfied that the Labour Relations Board is acting to the best of their ability within the confines of the law which the former administration placed on the statute books. Certainly when you peruse that law, I think that they've done rather a remarkable job of making that system work.

He mentioned the dispute which is going on at Cominco's operation in Trail and Kimberley and Salmo, and made some statements that I should indicate whether or not a vote will be held.

MR. CHABOT: Not true.

HON. MR. KING: Well, I certainly gained that inference; that the Member stated his views were that a hearing should be provided so that the workers may make a choice of the union they prefer in this type of situation. Obviously, I would have thought that a former Minister of Labour would know. I would have thought he would know that the Labour Relations Board makes their decisions, makes their adjudications….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KING: Well he's starting to hurt a little

[ Page 1373 ]

bit now, Mr. Chairman, and….

MR. CHABOT: I can't stand lying….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Well, why don't you refrain from lying then, Mr. Member for Columbia River. Why….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister please be seated. Would you state your point of order.

MR. CHABOT: …that I have no point of order and to sit down. I wish you'd tell that Member to be quiet and to shut his big, fat mouth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your point of order?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) be seated, and would the Hon. Member for Columbia River state his point of order.

MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that I wish the Member would withdraw the inference that I am a liar. When the Minister has been deliberately twisting everything that I've said previous to this point….

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order,

MR. CHABOT: That is a point of order! You'd better believe it is a point of order! I'm asking you to have that Minister withdraw that statement forthwith.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just caution both the Hon. Minister and the Member for Columbia River that they should not impute any motives unworthy of this House to each other. I would just ask you to continue in peace.

MR. CHABOT: Well stop lying, Mr. Minister. Stop lying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River be seated?

MR. CHABOT: Stop lying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask your cooperation in treating this subject with the seriousness that it deserves.

HON. MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your point is well taken. I must plead innocent in this situation, though. I'd suggest to the Member for Columbia River that if he can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

He said that he "couldn't stand lying." I assume that he was having pangs of conscience, and I suggested he refrain from doing so. Now I didn't accuse him of anything. He brought the matter up, not me.

However, to continue, Mr. Chairman: the dispute at Cominco in Trail-Kimberley will be adjudicated by the Labour Relations Board in the normal way, free from political comment from my office, free from political interference in any way. I would suggest that if the Member for Columbia River really understood the need for impartiality, for independence by the Labour Relations Board, he wouldn't be making the kind of suggestions that he's making here tonight.

I think it would be the most improper and a denial of impartiality for me as the Minister of Labour to comment with respect to the relative merits of either side of the question in Trail or Kimberley and so on.

He brought up the matter of Wagner Engineering in Vancouver. His assessment of that situation as I know it was also incorrect. The unit applying at Wagner Engineering was a new unit. There was no dispute in fact with another union seeking certification. The unit making the application satisfied the board that their cards were in order, that they were the appropriate unit to represent that group of workers, and that there was no conflict of application. Accordingly, they granted the certification. That is a normal and customary function of the Labour Relations Board.

Certainly it would be somewhat ridiculous to grant a vote when they already have the indication of the wishes of the members of that unit.

With respect to the compressed work week that the Member questioned me on, there are a number of union and management groups trying the compressed work week at the moment. The Department of Labour is quite prepared to grant exemptions and to grant the right, where there's mutual agreement between the union and management groups, to experiment with the shorter, compressed work week. So there really is no amendment to existing legislation required to provide for that eventuality. If it's satisfactory to the participants, both on the employees' side and on the management side, then the department is quite prepared to let them experiment.

Now with respect to the hiring hall abuse situation that the Member brought up, it's hardly worthy of

[ Page 1374 ]

comment; he outlined one case of an abuse in that respect. I realize that this is quite possible, but I think the indication of one violation of that kind of arrangement is hardly a basis upon which to bring about legislative change.

Certainly there are violations of the Labour Relations Act on the part of both management and particular trade unions throughout the year. I don't think the department should respond to every violation with a threat of amending legislation to bind them tighter than ever. Again, perhaps this is a philosophical difference of opinion, but I think it would be most irrational to take that approach.

The Woods Task Force recommendations that the Member drew to the attention of the House were never acted upon by either the federal government or any other provincial jurisdiction in Canada. I would take the position that the hiring hall problems — and some problems do exist — could best be solved through the joint efforts and joint cooperation of the trade unions themselves and the management people rather than involving the government in it.

The Member brought up my statements that I intended to encourage greater organization of the work force in the province. Yes, by all means, I said that. I made that statement. I reiterate that statement tonight. I think this is a highly desirable goal. Certainly all working people of the province, I think, should be encouraged to protect themselves with a trade union representation. I certainly make no apologies for that.

I have stated further that I would certainly be receptive to recommendations for relaxing the requirements for certification of new units. Again I suggest that this is highly desirable. If this House and the Members of it are sincere in their desire to bring an upward mobility to those workers who are at the lowest end of the economic spectrum, I suggest that this is only one rational approach that could be taken to assist them. Certainly I commend that approach to the House.

The apprenticeship applications, I think, was the final comment that the Member for Columbia River brought up. I'm assured by our director of apprenticeship training that indentures, where they're requested by an employer, are certainly available, of a particular apprentice.

The joint committee structure also has to be a mutually acceptable situation to the industry involved and the unions and so on. So I don't see any great conflict there. Perhaps there has been in the past. I am advised by the department that there is no great problem in that area now. Everything is working satisfactorily, and I am pleased to report that to the Member.

So I've tried to respond as well as I could to the questions that the Member raised. I added a few comments that I thought were worthwhile injecting. After all, in the spirit of levity, in which I think he put out some of the questions, I wanted to respond in kind. But I hope that I have given a fair assessment and a fair response to the Member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River for supplementaries. But I would caution the Hon. Members, when they're making supplementaries, that they are questions arising out of comments that were made by the Minister to the previous answers.

MR. CHABOT: First of all the Minister, in his reply to the question of the representative matter taking place in Trail between CWU and the steelworkers, suggested that I asked him to interfere with the procedures which are taking place before the Labour Relations Board. I think that if he'll listen to the tape that is being recorded at the moment, and reads it tomorrow, he will see how wrong he was.

I did in that matter ask a particular question — and that was the reason for bringing up the Trail situation, if the Minister was considering Canadian union representation on the Labour Relations Board — which you didn't answer.

Another question he failed to answer was the question of elevator inspections, what the status is there. I said that there are elevators in British Columbia that are supposed to be inspected on an annual basis that have not been inspected for three years. What does the Minister propose to do about this?

On the question of Sandringham Hospital, he said that his department is very active, and "we're negotiating," and "we believe in free collective bargaining." That isn't the attitude you took when you said to the owner of Sandringham Hospital that "I am deeply concerned about your apparent lack of responsibility." That's what you said, Mr. Minister. If that isn't taking sides, I don't know what is — accusing an employer of being irresponsible.

That's what you did there. If you're as concerned as you let on you are, why haven't you pursued referring the matter to the labour committee?

I remember in the past, long before you were here, when your Members used to sit over here and they used to say the committee of labour never does anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order. I believe there is a motion on the order paper standing in the name of Mr. Wallace — a motion that this dispute be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Labour. Therefore I would ask you not to discuss it other than in passing.

MR. CHABOT: I think that the Department of

[ Page 1375 ]

Labour has ways and means of helping the unorganized. Certainly in many instances it is necessary for workers to become organized in order to enhance their wage structure, enhance their working conditions and so forth. But you have to realize that there are workers who do not want to belong to a trade union. They should have that right without your relaxing the law to the degree that they will be harassed into a union.

There is a free choice in this province today for people to organize. There's a free choice of the union to which you wish to belong. I don't think that the Minister should come out foursquare and say that he believes in the "organization of the unorganized," because that is primarily the responsibility of the labour movement. It's not the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

You're a mediator. You stand between labour and management. You don't weigh heavily on one side as you've indicated you are prepared to do. You are there to respect and protect the rights of the unorganized in this province, and you can change the laws to protect those people who don't want to belong trade unions. You can enhance their working conditions. You can enhance their take-home pay as well. You have that power.

If you think that the unorganized in this province need additional incentive, why don't you change your laws? I am wondering whether the Minister will answer that question of whether he's going to suggest or whether there will be someday a representative of the Canadian union movement on the Labour Relations Board. And I am wondering if he would answer the question of the elevator inspections.

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

HON. MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I'll deal with the last question first, the question of encouraging greater organization of the unorganized in British Columbia.

It's interesting to note that in 1971 there were some 26 convictions of unfair labour practices with respect to certification applications for new units in the province. That figure had grown to 42 for the year 1972. The Department of Labour, through their industrial relations officers, is charged with the responsibility of policing the Fair Employment Practices Act. It has been the experience of the department over the years, certainly during your stewardship and also currently, that the new unit applications are very difficult to obtain where you have an employer who is firmly opposed to trade union organization. They employ all manner of tactics to try to coerce workers from joining a new union.

So it's not just a matter of an employee's right to join a union and indicate the union of his choice. There's the matter of his protection, his security of employment in exercising that right. This is what I'm referring to when I say I am sympathetic to a relaxation of the requirements for certification in situations like this.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KING: Just wait and see. As the man once said, "You ain't seen nothin' yet." I'm sure if the Member can be somewhat patient he'll find that this Government is quite innovative, and certainly we're expecting a broad input of suggestions from the review of the whole labour legislative area that we've undertaken at the present time.

Now, he questioned me with respect to a Canadian union representative on the Labour Relations Board. I have pointed out to the Member that the composition of the Labour Relations Board and the functions of it, indeed the whole legislative structure of the Labour Relations Act, the Trade-Unions Act and the Mediation Services Act are currently under review. So I am not prepared to announce conclusions of that review before I undertake the hearings and the representation which I expect to receive.

We have an open mind on what the functions of the board should be, what the composition of it should be and so on. So I am just not in a position to answer that kind of question at this time.

[Ms. Young in the Chair]

He brought up the Sandringham issue again. Although I appreciate that there is a motion on the order paper, Madam Chairman, I am quite prepared to comment on it.

The fact of the matter….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KING: I'll respond to the Member's question. I have no objection to cutting him off.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Mr. Minister, that is not in order. It is on the….

HON. MR. KING: All right. The Member will have to rest without his answer to that question then. Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's been quite an evening with the Minister and the former Minister battling toe to toe here. I thought that I was never

[ Page 1376 ]

going to get an opportunity to speak up on behalf of the union man in British Columbia.

Madam Chairman, for the benefit of the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), I'm about to do that right now. The Canadian union man, Madam Chairman, because until we have legislators in this country speaking up for the Canadian union man, we are forever going to remain dominated by the American labour movement.

Madam Chairman, make no mistake about it, every international union is an American union.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poppycock.

MR. McGEER: There is only one union for which even a minor case can be made, and this is the IWA, which has nearly half its members as Canadians. But I would submit if the day ever arrived when the IWA became dominated by Canadian workers, there would be a breaking away on the part of the American members of that union.

I say that there should be a number of changes made in legislation in this country to give the Canadian union an opportunity.

The first of these is that the infamous three-way pact should be outlawed in British Columbia. This disgraceful contract, arranged for between the Teamsters Union, the Building Trades Council and the Heavy Construction Industry of British Columbia, guarantees that a Canadian worker belonging to a Canadian union will not be allowed on a construction site in the Province of British Columbia.

This legislation, which discriminates completely and totally against the Canadian worker, is something which is condoned by the Government of British Columbia — present and past. And the three-way pact has been used to violate the terms of the Labour Relations Act. I intend to read to the Minister and to the House testimony given in the courts of British Columbia under oath which proves indisputably this fact.

I first want to read, Madam Chairman, what the Labour Relations Act says in section 6:

"No trade union, employer's organization or person shall use coercion or intimidation of any kind that could reasonably have the effect of compelling or inducing any person to become, or refrain from becoming, or to continue, or to cease to be a member of a trade union.

The testimony that I shall read will show that without any question of a doubt the Teamsters' union in British Columbia has used intimidation against Canadian unions. Furthermore, section 4 of the Labour Relations Act says:

"That no employer and no person acting on behalf of an employer shall seek by intimidation, by dismissal, by threat of dismissal, or by any other kind of threat, or by the imposition of a penalty or by a promise."

et cetera, et cetera.

"To induce an employee to refrain from becoming, or continuing to be a member or officer or representative of a trade union." I think that spells out very clearly, Madam Chairman, that in the matter of union membership, whether it be a Canadian union or an international union, threats, intimidation and coercion are a violation of that Labour Relations Act.

Having read the sections of the Act, I now wish to read testimony given in the courts of British Columbia under oath. I read the testimony given by Evan Jones, who is the general superintendent of the Victoria Paving Company.

"In 1964, the defendant, Dominion Construction Company Limited, was the prime contractor for the construction of the expansion of the shopping centre known as the Town and Country Shopping Centre, situated near the intersection at Douglas Street and the Trans-Canada Highway.

"At the time, the Victoria Paving Company Limited had been the low tender on the job and had gained the contract from the Dominion Construction Company Limited for paving on this particular job.

"The plaintiff had been engaged on that work for some two weeks when representatives of the defendant, Teamsters' union, local 213, appeared on the job and caused the job to be shut down because our employees, members of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 234, were engaged upon the job."

Madam Chairman, the situation was this, and it has been repeated again and again and again throughout British Columbia in the past decade. Members in good standing of a Canadian union, under contract with an employer and that employer under legal contract, working in a construction site in British Columbia, were harassed by people who signed the infamous three-way pact. The infamous three-way pact says: Only members of the Amalgamated Construction Association, the Teamsters' union and the Building Trades Council shall be allowed to go on a construction site in British Columbia. And to be a member of the Building Trades Council one has to be member of an international union, i.e. an American union. The testimony goes on:

"The defendant, Dominion Construction Company Limited, stipulated that the plaintiff would only be allowed to do the aforesaid job if Victoria Paving Company Limited could guarantee there would be no union problem on the job."

In other words, the company, the Victoria Paving Company, having bid and obtained a contract for work, was then subject to a question being raised. Victoria Paving was only a sub-contractor on the job. The main contractor, Dominion Construction, said

[ Page 1377 ]

that before they would give that company a subcontract, they had to guarantee there would be no trouble on the job. The plaintiff company was able to give such assurance only after the plaintiff sought and obtained permission from the local business agents of the defendant, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and local 213 of the Teamsters' union, to do the said work and receive from the said defendant unions a permit in that behalf.

The reason the permit was issued by the Teamsters' union and the other defendant in this case, the International Union of Operating Engineers, was because there was no company on southern Vancouver Island that had members of this union that could do the work. So if they insisted on the three-way pact at that particular stage, it would have made it impossible for this construction job to go ahead.

After that, here's what happened:

"Frank W. Peters, the business agent for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, local 213 and W.J. Wocknitz of the International Union of Operating Engineers, local 115 asked your deponent what the plaintiff company was doing in connection with getting the plaintiff's employees into their unions."

In other words, after this job was completed, the members of these unions went around to the employer asking what they were going to do to get their employees to join the Teamsters' union.

"I told them that the plaintiff company could not break the present agreement then held with the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 234, which would remain in effect until February of 1968.

"After this meeting I received a telephone call or a visit from either of the said Frank W. Peters or the said W.J. Wocknitz at intervals of approximately every three weeks through the fall, asking me what the plaintiff intended doing about encouraging the employees of the plaintiff to join the defendant Teamsters' union, local 213 and quit the Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 234, to which I gave non-committal answers."

Clearly intimidation, Madam Chairman, on the part of the Teamsters' union to destroy the CBRT by taking away the right of people belonging to that union to work on construction sites in British Columbia.

"Then sometime after Christmas but before New Year's, 1967, the said Peters and Wocknitz came to the plaintiff's company office and told your deponent that they were unhappy; that they understood that we were again negotiating with the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 234.

"They told me that if they were to decertify the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 234, and certify the members of the three-way pact unions as bargaining agents for the employees of the plaintiff that they had to work quickly. They were only free to do so within the three month date prior to the expiry of the present collective agreement and they asked if we, the plaintiff, would assist them in this purpose.

"I told the said representatives of the said defendant unions that we were not willing to attempt to influence our employees to that end."

In other words, the company was abiding by the terms of the Labour Relations Act. But the unions were persistent.

"During the first week of March, 1968, a delegation of union officials arrived at my office. The group again included Frank Peters, W.J. Wocknitz, one John Schibli, who was introduced to me as the president of the Victoria Building Trades Council, two representatives from the defendant Labourers' union, local 1093, and others. Mr. Peters acted as spokesman for the group and went over the same ground that he and Mr. Wocknitz had reiterated before. That is, they were seeking certification of the employees; that they wanted the assistance of the plaintiff in ousting the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 234.

"Then the said Peters went on to say that they, that is to say the unions represented by the group, had no alternative but to go to the contractors who had current agreements with the three-way pact unions and tell them that they were not going to allow us on any of their jobs that were currently in progress or which were contracted for in the future unless the three-way pact unions held certification.

"I asked the said Peters if they were striving to have only the truck drivers of the plaintiff's company included in the Teamsters' local 213, and he replied that this was not acceptable. They wanted the plaintiff company to cooperate in ousting the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 234, from both the plant and truck crews and encourage our employees to join the appropriate three-way pact union.

"On Friday, March 28, the said Messrs. Peters and Wocknitz again reappeared and conferred with Mr. Robert Cleland, manager and executive secretary-treasurer of the plaintiff and your deponent.

"He again went over much the same ground and learned that they had approached the defendant, the Dominion Construction Company Limited, the day before in respect of the said Simpsons-Sears Shopping Centre project and told the general superintendent of Dominion Construction

[ Page 1378 ]

Company Limited that if they were thinking of having us on their work this year, to forget it, as they would not allow it because we did not have a union agreement with them. "

They said they also made it clear to the said general superintendent of Dominion Construction Company Limited that no permit would be granted to the plaintiff in respect of that or any other job.

I could go on to refer to testimony on the case. I could read testimony in court from a dozen other cases. They all add up to the same thing: a conspiracy to destroy Canadian unions through coercion and intimidation; a totally illegal approach under the Labour Relations Act, contemptible in spirit; as far as I'm concerned, a totally unacceptable way to behave in the Province of British Columbia, one that should be totally outlawed by legislation.

I say that the failure of the previous government to act and of this Government to act is a course of action which condones and encourages illegality and coercion, and that the people who are the losers, as a result of this kind of thing, are Canadian working men. They, in the first instance; but in the final instances, all of the people of Canada. Because the Canadian working man is caught in a vise.

One jaw of that vise is the iron discipline of the international union structure, including the fact that Canadian unions are not permitted to join the Building Trades Council, excluded by American constitutions. On the other hand, there is provincial legislation which makes it necessary for the working man, to gain any work at all in British Columbia, to belong to one of those unions.

I read from testimony in another court case. This is what the CBRT itself has to say. In this instance I quote the testimony of Lawrence Alexander McClung, who's been a member of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers for 25 years. This is in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Victoria Paving Company v. a whole long list of defendants. He says that:

"The CBRT has made numerous attempts to join the Building Trades Council of British Columbia. Indeed, the regional vice-president of the CBRT, Richard C. Henham, has advised me and I verily believe that he did, on behalf of the CBRT, inform the said Building Trades Council that the CBRT would meet any of their requirements in order to join the said council and pay whatever was required to do so. But the said Building Trades Council of British Columbia refused to consider the application of the CBRT and, moreover, refused even to discuss the conditions of application."

Why? Madam Chairman, there was only one reason why. That is that the CBRT was a Canadian union Here's what Mr. McClung has to say, Madam Chairman, under oath:

"It is clear to me, from my longer experience in the Canadian trade union movement, that U.S.-controlled international unions are using the media

[ Page 1379 ]

of the Building Trades Council for the purpose of attempting to monopolize all work in the construction and transportation industry in British Columbia for their members, and to force all employees presently members of Canadian trade unions in this province and elsewhere in the Dominion of Canada out of the Canadian trade union movement and into the international unions.

"So successful have they been in their attempt to strangle the Canadian trade union movement in these said industries that the CBRT, for example, is no longer certified for any operations on the lower mainland of British Columbia, save for the national railways. Many of the employers on Vancouver Island for whose operations we have been certified have either discontinued using CBRT members or have advised us that if the present pressures on them by the defendant Teamsters' union and their international associates to get rid of the CBRT is not relieved, the said employers are going to be forced to capitulate because of economic necessity."

Now, Madam Chairman, those are not my words, nor are they the casual words of an experienced Canadian labour union man made off the cuff. Those remarks were made under solemn oath in the courts of British Columbia, and reflect — probably as never before — the true state of our affairs in the union movement in this province.

The state of affairs is quite obviously this: the laws of the province are making it possible for Canadian unions to be strangled by the Teamsters and other international unions who form the Building Trades Council. Madam Chairman, I'm not attempting in any way to defend past governments. I merely condemn the practices that have gone on in the past and, Madam Chairman, which continue to this day.

Yes, I give credit to the Minister of Labour because he attempted to rectify that situation last year. The outcry, Madam Chairman, was something to behold. The legislation that was introduced did need amendment. But what the unions requested and what the Minister of the day agreed to was to lift that Bill 88, with the implied understanding that the unions would clean house and end their outrageous discrimination against Canadian unions.

Madam Chairman, what happened immediately after that? We had the Teamsters' union moving around this province with what they termed the standard B.C. contract. The standard B.C. contract contained all of those offensive clauses. When Senator Lawson, the head of the Teamsters, was challenged on this point, he said: "Well, we didn't agree to make any changes. We only agreed to study it." That was not an honest declaration to the Minister of Labour. That was merely a device used to have that bill hoisted. I submit that the Teamsters had no intention at all of making any variation in that contract; nor will they do so until they are forced to by legislation introduced in this House.

Mr. Chairman, there was a four-month strike — Butler Bros.–Lafarge — because that company had the courage to hold out against this intimidation of Canadian unions. They had felt that some change would be made in the laws which would permit their employees to choose a Canadian union if that was their wish. But it was not to be, because the Teamsters had no intention of reforming their ways. As a consequence of this, there was a four-month strike. One of the operations employing truckers who were members of the Canadian union was forced to go out of business.

There are other reasons, Mr. Chairman, why someone must speak on behalf of Canadian unions. I want to make it very clear now that I do not wish my remarks to be misinterpreted as being in favour of non-union workers.

This is always the hue and cry whenever there is an objection raised against this rampant discrimination. I'm speaking for what I know to be in the hearts of Canadian working men, which is a desire to be in unions run by Canadians and for Canadians.

This is what we do not have in this country. Two-thirds of the workers in Canada who are unionized are forced — forced, Mr. Chairman — to belong to American unions. They're forced to belong to American unions by Canadian legislation, which discriminates against Canadian unions being formed and thriving.

A year ago in this Legislature I raised the case of Canadian working men who were tried in Washington, B.C., for a crime. That crime was advocating membership in a Canadian union. Those workers were from Kitimat, British Columbia. I think the outrage of workers in that city was primarily responsible for them switching their allegiance from the United States Steelworkers to the CLU, local 1. I congratulate that union and say that I hope that more locals of that union will be formed in this country. It's an industrial union. They have been emancipated from the American yoke.

But that can't happen in the craft unions in British Columbia. Unless something is done, it can't happen in transportation. Because I don't want to speak at length, Mr. Chairman, I will not read the testimony of what happened to the Canadian Ironworkers, No. 1. But Hon. Members may recall the former Member for North Vancouver–Seymour — a champion, Mr. Chairman, of human rights and Canadian workers' rights — standing in this House to object to a move by the International Ironworkers Union to have that worker dismissed from his job because he belonged to the Canadian Ironworkers, No. 1.

There were a number of so-called incidents. They're now documented in the courts of British Columbia. They're part of our infamous trade union history which explain how Canadian ironworkers were harassed off their jobs. Their crime, again, was belonging to a Canadian union.

Century Steel Services, under sub-contract to Bennett & White, who were the general contractors at Squamish, received a threat from certain unions affiliated with the Building Trades Council that a work stoppage might result from its employing the plaintiff's members in the construction of a chemical plant at Squamish — Canadian Ironworkers Union.

Construction of the Northwood pulp mill in Prince George: a man named Larson decided that he would not allow any concrete to be poured on this project unless they got rid of all the people who were not associated with the Building Trades Council. He said he told Shortreid he would have to get rid of all these people who were not members of the Building Trades Council. The business agents for the various unions went around to their people, and all work ceased at 11 o'clock that morning. Why? Because members of a Canadian union were on a construction site in Prince George in British Columbia.

Another instance: a man name Archette — and this is all testimony; part of the court decision of the Canadian Ironworkers Union v. the International Association of Bridge and Iron Workers. Archette was told that members of local No. 1 were working there. He said he told Archette, "You should have hired members of local 97." Archette got very angry and said, "I'm quite satisfied with the men I have got." The end result — a work stoppage.

Powell River, 1966: a job with Western Reinforcing was cancelled by the contractor because "if our men appeared on the job, there would be difficulties because of our being certified as local No. 1."

What some companies were doing, Mr. Chairman, to retain their contracts on the job, was that they were cancelling their companies which had contracts with the Canadian Ironworkers. The next day, lo and behold, a brand new company was formed out of the blue. This new company, without a single employee, would suddenly sign a contract with the American union. Then they'd go on with the same job, with one single difference, Mr. Chairman. No longer were Canadian union members on the job. They were turfed off, and the contract went to the American union.

So, Mr. Chairman, it goes on until today, Though there has been a breakthrough in industrial unions in this province, there is no breakthrough for craft unions. The three-way pact strangles Canadian craft unions.

I have had over the years many, many representations, not just from Canadian unions but from members of international unions who desperately want change, Mr. Chairman; who are afraid to speak out because if they do so to their union secretaries or their union presidents, they know they will not get work in British Columbia. If they have courage to form their own Canadian union and convince their fellow workers to take that step with them, their fate will be the same as that which came to the Canadian Ironworkers.

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Ironworkers did win their case. They got a substantial financial settlement. But, Mr. Chairman, what good did it do? The union

[ Page 1380 ]

was gone, and all the members had disappeared. It was a matter of necessity as far as they were concerned. But it wasn't what those members wanted. I am convinced that it is not what the Canadian working man in British Columbia wants.

Somehow the grip has to be broken. I don't say that we should outlaw international unions or, indeed, restrict them at all beyond completely fair and aboveboard practices. Because, Mr. Chairman, it's my belief that given an equal opportunity, American unions will vanish into the night. They only persist in Canada because of the control which they have been given by legislation, by the powerful friends they have in politics and by the intimidation that they are able to exercise over employers, particularly contractors.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well, we can have a separate discussion. The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) wants to learn about American companies. Mr. Chairman, I think that's a very fair discussion to have, but not under the Minister of Labour's estimates. Mr. Chairman, I don't want the Attorney General or any other legislator in British Columbia….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated. Would you state your point of order.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would you ask the Attorney General to return to his seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no requirement for a Member….

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, there certainly is, in this debate. There sure is.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing order states that a Member must, if he wishes to address the House, rise in his place. There is no other order to my knowledge requiring him to be in his seat.

Would the Hon. Member proceed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's the rule.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there could be no more feeble and weak-kneed excuse for continuing the abuses that international unions are perpetrating on British Columbia than to justify it by saying that we have international corporations. I say that because the working man in this province wants to belong to a Canadian union, made in Canada, dominated in Canada and serving the Canadian worker and not the American worker.

Furthermore, certainly the senator is going to be angry with me — after all, he is a vice-president of an international union. That is his responsibility. That's where his future is. But that's not what his men want, Mr. Chairman. I'm not speaking out against individual members of the Teamsters union any more than any other union in British Columbia. I merely want them to know that there is someone in this province who is prepared to speak on behalf of their right to belong to a Canadian union if they wish to do so.

Whether they come from the Teamsters union or any other unions that have been mentioned in this suit, I don't think the members of those unions condone what has been done by their business agents any more than I do. Those individual members want only the protection of unions being on the job and their right to receive a day's pay for a day's work. Those individual union members never wanted to walk off the jobs, but they were told to do so by their business agents, and they knew that if they didn't obey they'd be blackballed, just like the Canadian workers were blackballed.

So we are speaking out just as much for the workers who now belong to international unions as for those who do belong to Canadian unions. I am completely confident that the only ones who have real loyalty to the American unions are the business agents themselves, who have a vested interest in continuing on with the practices that exist today.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Member will have an opportunity to reply. Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to hear from individual union workers. I don't want to hear from the business agents and the secretaries; I want to hear from the individual union workers. If they tell me I am wrong in saying that I believe they wish to belong to Canadian unions, I will stand up in this House and apologize. I know what the mail is going to say, because I have been getting it for some time now. The Canadian worker, whether or not he belongs to an international union, wishes his union dues to remain in Canada. He does not like a situation where his wages are checked off and find their way across the border never to return.

We have the figures, those presented by Statistics Canada, which list many, many millions of dollars of Canadian working men going across the border and never coming back again. They add to these great international pools and the….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: The Member says: "It's the opposite." Who knows more, Mr. Chairman — Statistics Canada, or the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann)? I only quote Statistics Canada. Mr. Chairman, I believe Statistics Canada on this matter, and I think the average union man believes Statistics Canada too.

[ Page 1381 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, you see, that Member has been brainwashed too. But it can be obtained. Statistics Canada, Mr. Member.

Next, not only union dues, but the whole matter of union pension funds is something again which needs to come under very strong review by this provincial Legislature, because the pension funds of these international unions should be very closely scrutinized. There have been cases where Canadian workers have contributed to these pension funds and they have gone down to the United States and been misused.

I'm not going to go into the details of these instances. I only say this: we do not have adequate control of union pension funds to be certain that they are used exclusively for the benefit of the Canadian working man.

Mr. Chairman, I merely ask the Minister if he is prepared to introduce legislation to outlaw the three-way pact, if he is prepared to put a Canadian….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member that he cannot propose legislation or suggest to the Minister that he introduce legislation. He may only discuss the administrative aspects of the Department of Labour.

MR. McGEER: …with every respect, I do think it quite appropriate to ask if the Minister would consider legislation. It seems to me that I have heard many Members suggest the desirability of bringing legislation forward, and yet this is the first time I have ever heard a suggestion that it was out of order.

Mr. Chairman, you yourself know that if the Members on this side introduce legislation, as so many of us have done, it lies on the order paper and becomes a matter of closure. Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House nearly 10 years, and I hate to think how many private Members' days have gone by without the private Members ever having a day. It so happens that today is private Members' day, but the tradition that went on for so many years is unfortunately being continued which makes it impossible for us to discuss our own legislation until the Lieutenant-Governor is walking up the steps to prorogue us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment? I have on several occasions drawn the attention of the House to this particular section 1n May which says: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in committee of supply." I think that's clear.

MR. McGEER: I would like to put to the Member then, in that event, the desirability of observing private Members' day in the House, of which this is one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not a matter for consideration at this time. If the Member wishes to bring that matter up he should do it in the proper way.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member wishes to make a point of order would he state that he wishes to make a point of order?

MR. McGEER: I would suggest that on private Members' day — this being private Members' day — it would be most appropriate for the Chairman to recognize the rights, direct or implied, of private Members.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister understands the gist of my remarks — at least I hope he understands the gist of my remarks. They were merely to the effect that we needed legislation. I'm not asking him now if he would bring it in; I'm merely stating it as a fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Member proceeds, I would like to respond to his point of order. I would say to the Hon. Member that as the Chairman of the committee I receive my directions from the House, and I am not authorized to change to private Members' day or anything of that kind. Therefore I….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the matter of business assigned to us at this time, and that is the consideration of the administrative aspects of the estimates of the Department of Labour.

MR. McGEER: I feel that I must point out that there has been this bit of inconsistency. You said you took your directions from the House. The House expressed its wish, and I'm only willing to be guided by the House if you will be, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check with your Whips.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are in committee of supply considering vote 124 by order of the House. Could we proceed with this matter, please?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about dozens of millions of dollars of Canadian workers' money earned on the job by their sweat going down to the United States. Mr. Chairman, if you can tell me how I can get across to the Minister that this is

[ Page 1382 ]

wrong, and I know you agree it is wrong, I'll follow your directions on how best to do that.

Somehow we've got to make this point on behalf of the Canadian workingman. Again, it involves this three-way pact. It involves pensions. But most of all, Mr. Chairman — and you'll be pleased to know I'm going to sit down and give the Minister an opportunity to reply — it involves emancipation of the Canadian worker.

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

HON. MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just wondering why the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey didn't continue with his reading of the proceedings from the court. I wonder what the decisions were.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister has the floor.

HON. MR. KING: He seemed very concerned over the safeguards contained in the Labour Relations Act and at one point indicated that changes were necessary to protect the preferences of the workers in this province. At the same time, he was reading from a variety of court actions that were taken on the very basis of violations or alleged violations of the Labour Relations Act. Certainly it would appear from that that the workers to whom he was referring had the due process of the law in resolving any violations of labour legislation.

I appreciate the Member's point of view. I think that he's probably genuinely sincere in his comments regarding the choices and preferences of workers in British Columbia. But I would just draw to his attention that at the present time, 77.7 per cent of the work force in the province do belong to international unions. I doubt very strongly that the Member would suggest that the Department of Labour indicate a position in preference to either the Canadian trade union sections or the internationals. Certainly the international unions represent by far the highest proportion of workers in the province. On that basis, I hardly think that their input and their views can be ignored.

The number of certifications that are processed each year are available to the Members of the House. I would point out that the Canadian union has won certification in Kitimat. They are proceeding before the Labour Relations Board in the Cominco operations at Trail, Kimberley, Salmo and Benson Lake, I believe. They don't seem to be too hamstrung by the existing legislative provisions in the exercise of their preferences, whatever they may be.

Certainly if the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has a preference, he has every right to indicate that preference. But I would strongly suggest that those on this side of the House who are charged with an impartial adjudication of these kind of applications would be remiss indeed in indicating a partiality on behalf of either of the disputing parties in a certification move.

I would point out, too, that the kind of problems that the First Member for Point Grey discussed and charged the Teamsters with is hardly relevant in the discussion of Canadian unions vis-à-vis international unions. That type of thing goes on between international unions in jurisdictional disputes. Indeed, it goes on in jurisdictional disputes between Canadian unions also. I don't really think it's relevant in the sense that that Member put it forward, Mr. Chairman. Certainly that type of thing is undesirable. Disruption and the type of action that keeps people off jobs or ties up and halts industry is undesirable.

I feel, though, that perhaps a better way to try to resolve that problem is through the cooperation of the unions themselves. I question strongly the desirability of the government regulating to any degree the internal machinery and structure of trade unions, or indeed any other social organization within the province. I hardly think that that type of regulation which the Member suggests is the answer to the problem.

I understand that the former Minister of Labour was gravely concerned about this problem. In response to consultation he had within the building trades, some advances have been made in reconciling the type of problems that the Member expresses concern over. I'm satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that continuing efforts are underway in trying to bring about a greater reconciliation between the elements of the building trades and so on, so that we don't experience the conflicts over jurisdiction and membership and composition, and so on, that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has referred to.

Those are about all the comments I have on it, other than to say, Mr. Chairman, that again we are considering all ideas and representations on existing labour legislation. We're inviting the views of the union people and the management people and, indeed, the legislators, if they have views for improving the situation in the province. By all means, I invite the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to put forward his submission to my office and my advisors that I've secured to assist me in this exercise. Certainly they'll be considered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Just a supplementary question, Mr.

[ Page 1383 ]

Chairman. That was marvellous bafflegab from the Minister of Labour. He didn't talk about legislation, but we're not supposed to discuss that this evening.

I would like to ask the Minister, if he's merely seeking cooperation of unions — when we get into this inter-union warfare — how would he deal with a situation that conceivably could occur regarding Canadian unions. If, for example, a union like the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada had an agreement with the pulp mills saying that nothing would be delivered to the site except by the CBRT — that would be equally bigoted — but then if a Teamster truck arrived on the scene, that would be taken away — how do you deal with that?

We have had the equivalent, mind you on the other side. It was the famous CPR case. CPR was building a hangar for its aircraft at the Vancouver International Airport. It manufactured the components in the east; delivered them across Canada in freight trains by union people; they were picked up by union people at the CPR shed; they were delivered to the construction site at the Vancouver International Airport by union people. Do you know what happened when they got there? Teamsters appeared. No way anybody's going to work with that stuff. Why? Because the CBRT delivered those components to the Vancouver International Airport.

Now, all union all the way: CPR with the CPR union manufacturing, transporting — their own CPR trucking company taking it out to the site here in British Columbia, their own hangar. No way that could be touched because Senator Ed Lawson's union wasn't there to do the unloading. So what they did was they trucked all the material back on CPR trucks to the CPR sheds so the Teamsters could come and get it and take it to the CPA hangar so it could be put up.

That kind of thing is absolute nonsense. It's disgraceful, shameful. It would be just as bad if we had the equivalent thing with a Canadian union. But if you're going to tolerate it, Mr. Minister, with the Teamsters, there's no reason why the shoe can't be put on the other foot by the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada and the CBRT. That would be to the detriment of the union man in British Columbia, whatever union he belongs to.

So, Mr. Chairman, some way other than just cooperation of the unions has to be found. If that was all that was required, this would have been cleared up a year ago. When the former Minister of Labour lifted that bill, it was on the understanding that these abuses would be cured.

I could accept the Minister's words, bafflegab and all, Mr. Chairman, had it not been for the fact that the Teamsters turned directly around after this Legislature prorogued a year ago, and didn't violate the direct words that were contained in the commitment they made, but they certainly violated the spirit of the agreement and the feeling of the House. That's why something has to be done, Mr. Chairman.

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

HON. MR. KING: I'll just comment briefly, Mr. Chairman. I don't know what this new and profound word is that the Member has introduced — "bafflegab." I did try to indicate to him that I think it would be an act of folly to enter major changes in the structure of our legislation now, when I have a review of the total legislation of the province underway and when I have, in fact, invited the views and suggestions of the industrial relations world to make suggestions on proposed legislation.

If we have problems of that nature, certainly they'll be looked at. As far as hypothetical cases are concerned, I have enough problems dealing with reality. I have no desire to set up and deal with hypothetical ones, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'll be much more specific in my remarks. I wish to talk a little bit about the elevator strike existing in Canada since August 28.

This is the strike of the international union of Elevator Constructors. I don't think we need to go into the specific issues that caused this strike. It's a situation which arises, to some degree, from technology. The dispute is the question of the amount of prefabrication of elevators or the amount of on-site construction of elevators. Because of technological advance, elevator constructors are in less demand. In others words, jobs are being lost.

But that isn't the point, Mr. Chairman. It introduces to some degree this whole question of provincial, national and international unions. The strike began in Ontario on August 28 of last year. Maybe many Members of this House think to themselves: "Well, what's so vital about elevator constructors?" I'd just like the House to know, Mr. Chairman, that this is indeed a very vital feature of our modern living.

I can speak with direct experience of two hospitals in this city, particularly the Jubilee Hospital. Ancient elevators were in the process of being replaced by new elevators when the strike began. In one wing of the Royal Jubilee Hospital there is one ancient elevator about 50 years old coping with the total elevator needs of that building, which is four stories high. On the fourth floor is the delivery room for female patients in labour. We don't need to tell anybody how abrupt and unexpected the process of labour can sometimes be — and I'm not talking about

[ Page 1384 ]

the Minister's kind of labour.

I don't want to dwell on that, save to say that on the third floor there are also patients returning from surgery. We have one elevator serving all of the four floors. Sooner or later, Mr. Chairman, there's going to be a problem, whereby either the patient cannot get the one elevator to get to the fourth floor or, as has often happened, the one elevator in service breaks down or gets stuck halfway up and the patient will probably deliver in the elevator. That isn't as unlikely as it might sound.

It's not so humorous either, Mr. Chairman, if it happens to be your baby that gets born in the elevator and probably runs into complications. I know we all tend to joke about babies being born in taxis and elevators and so on. The fact is, it isn't that humorous if you happen to be the parent.

In the Gorge Road Hospital, which built an extended care wing, as I mentioned in an earlier debate, we also have one elevator serving a whole wing. This again may well not turn out to be a tragic situation, but the potential for tragedy is there.

We have many instances of apartment buildings which were in the process of completion when the elevator strike began. The buildings have since been completed. Either people cannot move into the building or they move into the building and cannot reach with ease the upper levels in the building. I'm referring particularly to elderly citizens, some of whom have heart disease and cannot just walk up four or six or eight flights of stairs.

There is also the question that in British Columbia we have, I think, in the order of 200 men on strike, and something in the order of $80 million worth of construction involved. The strike has been going on since last fall. To put the matter in context and in fairness to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Chairman, I sent a telegram to the Minister of Labour in the late part of this year. He responded and took action and tried to find out what the jurisdictional aspects of this dispute were. The fact is that we're dealing with local 82 of an international union which chose to have the head office of the union negotiate in Toronto for all provinces.

The fact is that the employers took the matter to the Supreme Court of B.C. The Supreme Court of B.C. found — and this was further upheld in the Court of Appeal — that collective bargaining as defined in the B.C. statutes had not, in fact, taken place. On this basis the B.C. Supreme Court said that the strike was illegal. This finding has since been confirmed by the B.C. Court of Appeal.

To bring this matter to a head, the situation is simply that we have an illegal strike involving 200 people and $80 million worth of construction and a very considerable amount of hardship to many citizens in hospitals and in apartment buildings. At this stage in the situation nationally, the Premier of Ontario has announced that he considers the matter of sufficient public concern in his province that he will bring in legislation to bring about compulsory arbitration. The government of Alberta, while, it has stated quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, that it would prefer national arbitration, has also said that if the situation is causing a sufficient hardship to a large enough number of citizens it will take action as Ontario has done.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that one of the features of labour-management negotiations in our society which concerns the average person like myself, who doesn't really know a great deal about this subject, is that when these matters go to court and a court decision is rendered, there sometimes seems to be an unconscionable — if I can use the legal term — delay in either government or the law itself taking its obvious course. If I as a citizen break the law, there's not too much delay in paying the penalty. Here we have a union in British Columbia which has been on an illegal strike since August of last year, causing very considerable hardship and even risking lives in relation to the hospital problem I've outlined.

Here we are with this illegal strike being allowed to continue and, as far as I'm aware, in this province there's no sign of this Government deciding that the point has been reached at which this dispute must end. We've been through this kind of debate, to a degree, on the school strike in Victoria, when the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education chose to delay intervention until they felt that a certain point had been reached at which the Minister could meet with the parties and use his influence and friendly persuasion to end the strike. That is what happened. We needn't go through all that again, except that I think the strike should have been settled sooner.

Society accepts the virtues and desirability of fair collective bargaining until a point is reached at which it is clear that the responsibility of government, by virtue of the number of members of society who are suffering unfairly, is to take measures to bring this kind of dispute to an end.

I would submit, in the light of the evidence from the whole of Canada, and particularly Ontario and Alberta — and I suppose I can be criticized in that both of these provinces happen to have Conservative governments. But I personally don't associate my own feeling or the feelings of people who have spoken to me on the subject that this really is a partisan political issue. It is the feeling of people most affected by this particular dispute that the dispute has gone on many months. The parties to the dispute have had a very fair and complete hearing in two levels of the courts of this province. The decision by, first of all, Justice A.B. Robertson and the subsequent decision by Justice Nemetz are unmistakably clear that the strike is illegal.

[ Page 1385 ]

People are suffering. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that we would welcome a statement from the Minister of Labour tonight as to his feelings in relation to the points that I've raised. Does he agree or disagree? And what does he feel would be an appropriate action for this Government at this time?

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

HON. MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The elevator constructors' strike has indeed been a tough one to break. As the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) indicated, it is an international union with a national pattern of bargaining. The sorry part of the situation, I think, is that this is the first strike that has ever been taken by this particular union, which serves to demonstrate, I think, that they have been a rather responsible group — both the industry and the union. That's a very admirable and commendable record, I believe.

On that basis, certainly, it makes me somewhat hesitant to interfere with the pattern of bargaining which seems to be highly successful. I am quite well aware that we have a tremendous amount of construction tied up in the province and indeed across the length and breadth of Canada.

Perhaps I should comment first of all on the dislocation of elevator service at the hospital that the Member spoke of, Mr. Chairman. The union, I understand, has agreed to make services available for hospital elevators, maintenance and so on. The only work they would not undertake was new construction. So I believe that in emergency situations, where the health and indeed the life of hospital patients is involved, they certainly do have access to the services of this particular union.

We're in the position that Ontario — with all deference to the Member, regardless of the political stripe of that government — has in fact been carrying the ball for all the rest of the provinces. There has been close collaboration with the Deputy Minister, Mr. Dickie, and my Deputy, Mr. Sands, as well as with the Minister of Labour in Ontario. Certainly they've persevered to a great degree in keeping the parties together in trying to achieve a formula for settlement.

The action that was taken by the companies in British Columbia was on the premise that collective bargaining had in fact not been undertaken in the province. While this was true, they found that the strike was in fact illegal. So they have taken an independent action against the union on that basis, I understand, for damages incurred in an illegal strike.

Now this is a court action. Certainly under existing legislation they're quite free to proceed with this type of thing. What I question is whether or not this is really relevant to our interests in terms of trying to resolve the impasse.

As I indicated earlier, we have been in constant touch with Ontario. We have received no indication as yet that that province's Department of Labour has thrown up its hands and said, "No, there's no hope of settlement." They are in fact still endeavouring to settle the thing, and until they indicate to the rest of the provinces that it's futile from their point of view, I think we should be willing to bear with them and try to see if it can't be settled in an amicable way.

I'm quite aware of the disruptive impact of it. I have also met with both the elevator constructors' national bargaining committee and with the union's national bargaining committee. We've had preliminary discussions here in British Columbia; but at this point I can really see no change in the relative positions that the two parties have taken that could be achieved by transferring the current discussions from Ontario to British Columbia, because you certainly transfer the same problems and the same obstacles to a solution. I don't think a change of venue, as it were, would be the device that's required to do the trick in this particular strike. So that's where it's at now.

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, if I might follow up a little bit on the Minister's answer, I'd like to quote from the statement of Mr. Justice Nemetz. He pointed out at the beginning of the negotiations — and I realize this is a tricky matter; even I can see that — that the negotiations began with an effort to obtain a national agreement for all provinces. Local 82 had given to this national negotiating body the power to negotiate a national agreement. I'd like to quote Mr. Justice Nemetz, who says:

"Local 82 took no action of its own when it became apparent that negotiations in Toronto had reached a standstill." He (Justice Nemetz) said that the local had two choices: "either it could have told the international negotiators to bargain with a view to reaching an agreement covering B.C. only; or…" — and this I think is a very pertinent part of the argument — "it could have bargained itself for a purely B.C. agreement.

"But if after such bargaining Local 82 had failed to conclude an agreement, then in my opinion it would have complied with B.C. law and would have been free to authorize a strike."

Now the fact is that it chose neither of these two alternatives. It decided to go along with the stalemate that existed at the national negotiating level in Toronto and is in effect now carrying on an illegal strike, which as I say has been proved at two levels of the courts of this province.

Could I put the question another way, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister: would he consider as a

[ Page 1386 ]

positive step to solving this dispute, at least for British Columbia — and that's what we in this House must be concerned about — in the light of the Justice Nemetz statement that one of the alternatives which this union local 82 has would be, in the light of failure nationally, for the B.C. local to now proceed to try and negotiate its own agreement with the employers here in British Columbia.

Now granted, the Minister might get a "yes" or "no". But it would seem to me that in the light of these court findings this would be a very reasonable compromise/ We would not be compelling the workers to return to work, but on the other hand we would be giving them an avenue which the justice of the Court of Appeal has said would be acceptable and would constitute legitimate collective bargaining. So could the Minister please tell us whether he would consider advising the local now to proceed to bargain for B.C. alone?

HON. MR. KING: I'll take that suggestion under consideration, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister did say something — he must have been mumbling because I didn't get it — on the question of public input on the investigation of the labour laws of British Columbia. I am wondering what form this will take — whether it will be in the form of public hearings across the province or whether, because he stood in the House this evening and said that, "If you have any suggestions to make, just write to the three investigators that I've appointed" — will you be informing the general public that you will be accepting briefs on this very matter? Will you be also informing the general public what the terms of reference are, under what matters they should express their point of view?

I think it is most important. I think you should do it. I don't know whether you are going to have public hearings across the province or not. If not, I think you should, through the process of the news media, inform the general public that they have a particular deadline to make submissions to you so that they will also have an opportunity of input in this matter of changing of labour laws in the province.

A little earlier I did put a question to the Minister to which I am still to receive the answer, and it has to do with elevator inspections. I put the question twice before. I said that while I was Minister of Labour last year we did appoint, on a suggestion from the department, three additional elevator inspectors. We increased it from 11 to 14, which at that time was felt adequate to look after the backlog of inspections that had to take place as well as provide for the increase in elevators that were being installed in the province.

I'm wondering why — just a few, months ago, two or three months ago — I enter elevators still displaying signs indicating these elevators have not been inspected for three years. I'm wondering what the problem is on these inspections; whether there is a need for additional staff? When will they catch up with the backlog? It is an important matter, because we are dealing with public safety in public buildings. I think it is worthy of consideration from the Minister to answer this particular matter.

Now the question directed to the Minister dealing with the Labour Relations Board: I'm wondering whether it would be possible for a union to obtain a variation of certification to include a classification of workers that are not employed by that particular employer. If it is possible, under what conditions or under what circumstances would this take place? There has been a variation of certification that has included employees that have never been employed by an employer, and they are now included in a variation of certification.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. Unfortunately I don't have the direct information with me, but this is the fact. I hope you will give me an answer indicating to me whether it is possible for this to take place. Now, one other point which was touched on very briefly by a Member was the question of national agreements. I'm wondering whether the Minister would give the Members his attitude on the question of national agreements in the province. I am sure he is aware that it is not necessary for those national agreements to conform to the working conditions in the province and the labour laws of our province as well.

I really believe that in many instances these national agreements do interfere with the settlement of labour disputes in the province. They really do provide in many instances a source of funds to continue strikes in the province. They continue a source of employment for employees that are laid off in another local strike situation. I think it is not in the best interests of the workers of British Columbia and of the industry of British Columbia — these national agreements.

Those national agreements, in my opinion, were required in years gone by when British Columbia was a younger province and we didn't have the type of contractors that presently exist in the province, contractors that could take on a huge project such as a pipeline or a pulpmill or things of that nature.

In British Columbia we have contractors today that can cope with almost any type of construction project. I think some consideration should be given to them to protect them in the province, and I think it is in the best interest of the workers too. I'm wondering

[ Page 1387 ]

what the Minister's attitude is relative to national agreements.

Now, one other short point: it's been reported in the Press that the Minister has had a discussion with a labour group in his office dealing with the question of court injunctions. The report of his meeting — which is not a direct quote from the Minister but of the group that met with him — suggested that the Minister was quite sympathetic towards the abolition of injunctions in labour disputes.

I'm wondering whether this is his real, genuine feeling. I think injunctions have a very necessary place to protect the public interest and to protect public property as well. I think the courts have a very important role to play in granting…and I am sure that judges of the supreme court are very cautious when they do grant injunctions in labour disputes. They weigh their decisions very carefully.

I'm wondering whether the Minister is giving some consideration to doing away with this practice, because it has been recommended by the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Mr. Chairman left the chair at 11 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report progress and ask leave for the committee to sit again.

Leave granted.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We will carry on with the vote. I thought some kind of discussion around the time-table had already taken place, but I guess I misunderstood.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I certainly did.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:04 p.m.