[ Page 1389 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading — 1389

Committee of supply: Department of Labour estimates.

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1389

Hon. Mr. King — 1390

Mr. Chabot — 1390

Hon. Mr. King — 1390

Mr. Chabot — 1391

Hon. Mr. King — 1392

Mr. Chabot — 1392

Mr. Wallace — 1394

Hon. Mr. King — 1396

Mrs. Webster — 1397

Hon. Mr. King — 1397

Mr. Radford — 1398

Mr. McGeer — 1401

Mr. Gabelmann — 1401

Mr. Gardom — 1403

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1406

Mr. Chabot — 1406

Hon. Mr. King — 1407

Mr. Chabot — 1407

Hon. Mr. King — 1408

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1408

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS'
DISCLOSURE ACT

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

Motion approved.

Bill No. 132 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the House to welcome members of my family visiting here from Kamloops and observing our proceedings.

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

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join me in a similar request and also I would like to confess to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) that I have asked two of my daughters and two of their friends to come to the House today, which means they are out of school. I thought it might be a worthwhile experience. Although they are not here yet, they will be arriving about 11 o'clock. I would like to take this opportunity to wish — let's see — I think one of their names is — (Laughter) Connie, Beverley, Linda and Colleen. Colleen and Linda are the friends.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. LT. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Mr Speaker, I don't know whether they are in the House yet, but there is a whole hockey team along with its coach Bob Jones coming from Cranbrook, and they will be in the galleries. I don't see them right now, but I thought I had better tell you when they do come in. I want you to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I would like the House to welcome to the galleries the mayor of our fair city of Chilliwack, Mayor Allan Holder.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

(continued)

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

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

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter of the Minister's salary. There have been quite a few comments made in the House and I think they can be added to, for the Minister's information and the information of the House. I certainly can't agree with some of them that were made with respect to the trade union movement.

Since moving to Kamloops 16 years ago, I have been a member of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union. It is a good union of which I am proud to be a member. I have taken part in its activities for approximately 12 years, both in bargaining and in annual conferences.

I think the House should know that we don't accept any dictatorship from our international office in Denver. We do have a director at the Canadian office in Edmonton, who is elected every two years by the Canadian membership. He is given full authority under the international constitution to be the voice of our union on public and union affairs and any matter of public policy of our union. At present his views on the transportation of oil down the west coast of Canada are in opposition to the international president and he isn't going to move from that position.

We have had a couple of strikes, of course, over the 16 years too, which isn't too bad.

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

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: There are a couple of organizations, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, in this country which have extremely tight closed shops which restrict their membership and police them very severely. I'm speaking of the medical association and the bar association. I would like to see any lawyer come to this province and try to practise without being called — as they call it — to the bar.

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

[ Page 1390 ]

believe they have a system of dues of some kind. I would like to see them continue to practice if they fall too far behind in their dues or violate their internal constitution in some way. I mentioned it one time before in the House but I would like to refresh the House's memory of one of the longest and most disastrous strikes in the history of the province of Saskatchewan that was carried out by that closed shop, the Saskatchewan Medical Association.

The good of the public wasn't mentioned very often in the Press, and they had an excellent organization to carry out their publicity for them. They called it simply a "withdrawal of essential services." Now, we have some strikes going on today in school boards and children have to miss school in some cases. We have had strikes on the Vancouver Transportation System and people have had to find some alternate form of transportation. I just wonder: what do you do when you call your doctor and he says: "Well, is it essential?" You have to make this decision on whether it is essential or not. Or perhaps he has simply gone on an extended vacation or he doesn't answer his phone. There are many, many ways of withdrawing services.

Mr. Minister, I won't belabour this point too long, but I would like to find out, while we are discussing your salary, if there are any plans this year or next year, in your department or by your committees, to bring these two closed shops under some kind of control under a labour Act or some type of regulation under your department.

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

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, in response to the question by the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), I can state that there are no plans to interfere in the internal policies and the internal structure of the two organizations he referred to. I would reiterate my response last night which I made to one of the Hon. Members that I would much prefer that individual, private organizations bear the responsibility, both social and to the members, of regulating their own affairs in such a manner that it would not invite regulation from the government. That would be my response.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last night I posed a series of questions to the Minister. Apparently it will be necessary for me to repeat these questions to him as I was cut off by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

I'm not going to stand in my place today and defend the international union movement or the American unions. Although I belonged to an international union for 25 years, I think that individuals should have the right to belong to the unions of their choice. I don't know whether the Minister wants to answer some of the questions that I put to him or if he wants me to restate the questions.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) last night asked the question with respect to elevator inspections, and was concerned that there were elevators which had not been inspected for three years.

This is not the case. There are no elevators in the province which have not received an inspection within that duration of time.

What happens, I am informed, in this type of situation is that many of the inspection cards are either removed from elevators — in fact when the inspection is completed and an inspection card is issued, it is issued to the owner, not affixed to the elevator by the inspector. As a consequence, many of them are not posted. Others are tampered with perhaps by the public, and so on. So you don't really receive an accurate reflection of the up-to-date situation in elevators in that way.

We have made provision to increase the elevator inspectors by three as of April 1 of this year. I indicated, I believe last fall in the House, that when I assumed this office there was a backlog of some 1,800 elevator inspections, which were overdue simply because we lacked the number of inspectors to keep pace with the demand. We have acted as quickly as possible. In the estimates you will see provision for increased moneys to secure additional inspectors.

The Member, Mr. Chairman, restated a question on a variation of certification for people who are not employees of an employer. He asked whether or not it would be possible for them to be included. The answer is no, it would not. Certainly, if there is no employer-employee relationship I would not think they would be able to be included.

However I would point out, Mr. Chairman, as I would imagine the Member knows, the determination of people who may be included in a unit is decided upon by the Labour Relations Board. Certainly in making their determination of any specific application, they take into account all the circumstances of that particular case and they hear representations by any interested party if it's warranted.

I believe he raised a question on injunctions. My comments on injunctions, that he referred to in a Press release, were simply that I thought injunctions are a very poor way of achieving solutions to strikes. I think they're a device that is certainly not conducive to establishing a harmonious industrial relations climate in the province. What is more, I would suggest to the Hon. Member, Mr. Chairman, that injunctions should not be held out as the only effective method

[ Page 1391 ]

that management or indeed unions have in terms of securing redress from illegal actions that may take place. There are other statutes on the books which adequately provide protection in that respect too.

Injunctions, as they apply to labour disputes, became very popular under the previous administration. I think the fact that they are not as prevalent today is rather through the exercise of prerogative in the courts than a policy of the former government. I reiterate, I strongly feel that they are a poor weapon to be used in an attempt to develop any harmonious relation between employers and employees. Certainly that's not one of the types of methods that I'm looking for in an effort to try and bring about a greater degree of peace and stability in the industrial relations world of British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Public input on the whole hearings?

HON. MR. KING: I think I did answer that last night. I did indicate that we will be announcing the sites for conferences around the province at a number of other locations — conferences similar to the Harrison conference. I have stated publicly, and we will be sending out definite publicity on a method by which interested parties can make representation through my office or through the special advisors which I have secured for the purpose of assisting me in the review. So anyone who is interested will have adequate opportunity for input and suggestions.

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

MR. CHABOT: On the question of elevator inspectors, it's really unfortunate that you had to inherit such a backlog of inspections when it was deemed that three additional inspectors in 1972 would be satisfactory to meet the needs of elevator inspections in the province at that time.

I think really if you suggest that all elevators have been inspected and are fairly current, it should be contingent upon the inspector to have some of these outdated cards removed from the elevators. It was just a couple of months ago, when I was in the Doric Howe Motor Hotel there was a card in the elevator there that indicated it hadn't been inspected for over three years. There is another building whose name escapes me, here in the City of Victoria, with outdated cards. I think the inspector, in his inspection, should look at these cards and have the things removed.

It is NDP policy, I understand, for a minimum of government and court interference in the question of labour-management relations. I'm not going to raise the matter this morning, because the matter is presently under negotiation, but I have conclusive evidence, really, at this stage — and I don't want to interfere with what's taking place — that you did issue a directive which does take a particular side in the collective bargaining process. I'll raise it at a later date and probably through correspondence rather than on the floor of the House. It has to do with contracts and a first contract.

However, I do want to say that I think in many instances, even though you don't agree with the court procedure in settlement of certain disputes, I think some worthwhile decisions can be brought down by the courts. And the one instance in particular that I'm thinking of is the one in the elevator dispute. I think a far better solution was resolved through the courts than could ever be brought about by the process of compulsory arbitration, such as is being considered in the Province of Ontario at this time.

Last night you did ridicule my question that I put to you. The question was very simple: would the certification of a non-existent unit be considered an appropriate unit for collective bargaining? You thought it was very ridiculous that I would put such a question. So I'll put it in a little different form to you, about a variation of certification. I have correspondence here now that indicates that this has taken place, that the board has certified a non-existent unit of employees of an employer. My correspondence goes this way:

"Briefly in summary we were initially advised that the trade union had applied to the board to be certified for unit of employees which we believe and still believe does not exist."

When I brought the matter up last night, you ridiculed me, having been a former Minister of Labour, to have brought up such a foolish and asinine question.

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

MR. CHABOT: Here is the copy of correspondence from an employer. It goes on:

"At a later date advice was received that the application for certification was withdrawn by permission of the board, and instead the trade union requested a variance or consolidation of existing certificates, incorporating into the bargaining unit the same non-existent unit of employees for which the trade union had initially requested certification. Naturally we registered our objection with the board to the trade union's oblique approach towards achievement of the same end, namely certification to represent a group of employees in a classification which we have claimed does not exist."

I am wondering whether you have any comments on that subject which I raised last night. Also, without going through the question of national agreements which I raised last night, I am wondering whether you want to

[ Page 1392 ]

comment on national agreements and what your attitude is relative to them.

HON. MR. KING: On the question of elevator inspections again, the concern of the Department of Labour, of course; is that the safety of the public be protected. We're more concerned in knowing and recording that the inspections are in fact carried out than we are with whether or not the particular certificate is up to date on the elevator that the Member may have observed.

However, if he is concerned about any particular elevator, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he refer the matter to the elevator inspection branch and certainly they'll look into the matter.

The certification thing that he has raised, Mr. Chairman, is a matter that I certainly haven't got all the facts on. I would suggest to the Member that he provide me with the facts and the circumstances of the case he refers to. I will certainly look into it. I don't pay particular attention to every certification adjudication that the Labour Relations Board makes. As long as I am satisfied that they have acted within the laws as they are presently constituted, then I have no reason to interfere with their adjudication of a particular case.

Variations of certificates is a somewhat different matter than the original question raised by the Member. If he's referring to a variation to allow for the inclusion of additional employees into a certified unit, this is very common. If he's suggesting, as I understand it, that a group of employees who weren't presently employed was involved, I could only assume that that was a case where a union expected a group of people to be hired and they were applying for the right to represent those people before the jobs were actually created. That may be the case; I don't know.

I would suggest to him that he provide me with the details of that case and I'll certainly do my best to provide him with the board's reasons for adjudicating it in the manner in which they did.

As far as national negotiations are concerned, as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) indicated, he belongs to a union himself in which national bargaining has been the practice for the last 100 years. Certainly I happen to be in the same situation with respect to my railroad union too. In this respect we're governed to some extent by federal and provincial jurisdiction. I certainly have some views on this matter, views which I will be raising with the federal Minister of Labour when I attend the federal-provincial conference with him in May.

However, the main thing is that if a system of bargaining such as the national pattern is successful and there's a low incidence of strike action, such as the case in the elevator dispute, then I would reiterate that I would certainly be reluctant to interfere with a situation which seems to be very successful. I don't think anyone would want to interfere with that type of structure.

In certain areas of federal jurisdiction there are problems as they relate to the province, not only with respect to negotiations but with respect to other aspects of our labour legislation. These include safety inspections under the Workmen's Compensation Board and so on. I'm very concerned about these areas. As I stated earlier, I do intend to raise these matters at the federal-provincial conference when it comes up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay. I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River if he wouldn't mind letting some of the other Members ask questions for a while and come back and ask some more later. I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

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

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

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

The Minister has indicated that it is possible to vary a certification to include a hypothetical classification of workers — workers that are non-existent. He's indicated that it's possible. I don't think that it should be possible unless the workers are in place. I don't think that the certification should include a classification of workers that are not employed by that employer. I'll bring the matter further because it's a technical situation. I'll bring the correspondence forward to the Minister. I'm very happy to see that he will give me full reasons.

Incidentally, the board doesn't give reasons for their decisions, and you know that. I'm glad to see that on the floor of the House this morning you promised to give a reason for the decision brought down by the board on this very question of variation and the inclusion of non-existent employees into a unit.

It appears that you've misconstrued the question of national agreement. A national agreement is not necessarily an agreement belonging to a union in the United States whose members are working in Canada. A national agreement is one which can be signed just about anywhere. It can be signed in Washington, D.C., it can be signed in Montreal or Toronto, it can be signed in Vancouver, and it can be signed in Victoria as well.

It's an agreement that really, in my opinion, bypasses all the laws of British Columbia. It's called a national agreement. In many instances there are "No strike" clauses and so forth. It becomes a haven for

[ Page 1393 ]

other workers who are locked out or on strike or involved in other disputes in the province. It also becomes a form of financial assistance to unions that are in a dispute with a local British Columbia contractor.

What I'm saying is that it's detrimental to the well-being of the workers of this province and to the contractors of this province to have national agreements. This is primarily in the construction industry. I'm wondering what the Minister's attitude is relative to national agreements: whether he thinks they're a good thing; whether they're contributing something worthwhile to our society, to the people of British Columbia, to the contractors of British Columbia.

They were necessary many years ago when British Columbia did not have the type of large and efficient contractors that exist here today. I'm sure that the contractors that are in British Columbia right now can handle most construction projects that are available. I don't really think that there's a need for these secret national agreements which prey upon the contractors and the workers of this province, and which contribute greatly to the labour strife in British Columbia. I'm wondering what the Minister has to say about that.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's any way that the provincial government can intervene in an agreement which is mutually acceptable to two parties in Alberta or Nova Scotia or anywhere else. His approach seems to be somewhat inconsistent, though. He's concerned on the one hand for the interests and rights of the working people. Yet he said that if they have the benefit of a national union organization in a strike that exists in British Columbia, they may have an advantage. They may be too strong.

I would draw his attention, Mr. Chairman, to the railway industry, which I would have thought he would know something about. When he suggests that there is advantage in that kind of a national situation, I would draw it to his attention that the members of a union negotiating under a national arrangement have to comply not only with the federal statutes, but also with the provincial ones. They're subjected to five different pieces of legislation: The Railway Act of Canada, the Criminal Code and the national Labour Act, as well as the provincial Acts respecting trade unions — the Trade Union Act and the Labour Relations Act — and so on.

I would think, in that situation, that it's a distinct disadvantage to the railway workers particularly, who are one of the largest groups involved in national bargaining, to be locked in on that kind of process. As to whether or not I have views on the matter, certainly I do, but I really don't think they're relevant at this time. I think that we're in a situation that the Member for Columbia River should certainly be familiar with. He existed under it for some 20 years with his administration. I'm wondering what he would suggest as an alternative.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Make it short, please.

MR. CHABOT: Really, you've left the impression here this morning, Mr. Minister, that the so-called national agreement signers — call them what you want; that's a misnomer really — you've suggested that they must comply with all the laws of British Columbia. That's a bunch of nonsense. I think that the law should be changed so that they must comply with all the existing laws of British Columbia that protect the workers of this province and protect the contractors of this province as well.

It's not difficult either. If you want me to give you suggestions — if you'll assure me on the floor of this House this morning that you'll implement those suggestions, which will be reasonable, Mr. Minister — I'll give you suggestions tomorrow morning that will eliminate the type of strife that has been created by national agreement signers in this province.

HON. MR. KING: Well, it is rather unfortunate that you had to wait until this late date to solve all those problems. I would have thought that you would have taken the action that was needed during your 18 months' tenure in this office. However, certainly I'm willing to listen to suggestions, particularly if we arrive at the unique situation where I receive a responsible one. I'll certainly listen.

I would reiterate again that the national unions are indeed subject to the Trade Unions Act. I can tell you with a degree of chagrin that they are subject to those laws in the province. I at one time manned a picket line during a national strike on the railways and had that picket line removed by an injunction that was provided for on the statute books of this province, placed there by the former administration.

The injunction was granted on a blanket basis for the total of British Columbia. There had been no acts of violence or any other nature which would justify an injunction removing the picket line at Revelstoke, British Columbia.

Yet, an injunction was granted in Vancouver — a blanket injunction that was flown to interior points and served simultaneously on all the divisional points in British Columbia — adjudicated in Vancouver without any knowledge whatsoever of what was going on in Penticton, Revelstoke, Cranbrook, and Nelson and so on.

So I happen to know something about the effects of provincial legislation on national unions. I also happen to know something about the effects of arbitrary injunctions issued to break strikes that are not illegal, and that are being conducted in a peaceful way.

[ Page 1394 ]

So I wonder whose advocate the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) has become. It seems that during the course of the evening he was rejuvenated with gems of information provided by someone, which he didn't seem to have in the past. We can only speculate on that.

However, this is the situation. There is an overlap of legislation between federal and provincial areas. But to arrive at the suggestions that the Member put forward, I would think that an amendment to the British North America Act would be required. That's not easy to come by, so if he has a suggestion for accomplishing that, I'd certainly be willing to listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, followed by the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few points I think are worth raising, one about which we've had a considerable amount of correspondence. It is the question of whether or not persons of religious conviction should be exempt from paying union dues; or rather putting it more accurately, that they should have the choice to have their union contributions paid to a charity or a charitable organization of their choice.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would point out to the Hon. Member, if he's referring to the so-called conscience clause, that there is a private Member's bill on the Order paper on this matter. Therefore I would ask him to refrain from discussing it.

MR. WALLACE: I have another matter and I'd like, to just ask your views on this, Mr. Chairman. There's also a bill on the order paper to do with the Workmen's Compensation Board. I would hope that it is the feeling of the House, since that bill deals only with review boards, that we are at liberty in this debate to cover the affairs of the Workmen's Compensation Board if we avoid discussing review boards. Is that the correct understanding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, thank you. The Workmen's Compensation Board is a very important part of service to society, to the injured workman or to the workman who becomes disabled because of disease. I really regret having to offer some of the criticisms that I propose to offer, but I feel that some of these matters should be said.

In the first place, there is good reason to believe that the medical department of the Workmen's Compensation Board should be abolished. By that, I'm suggesting that an injured workman or a workman who develops disease as a result of exposure should be treated from the medical point of view exactly like any other patient. He should go to his family physician, who in turn refers the patient to specialists of his choice, exactly in the same manner that any other illness or affliction is treated.

Compensation as such should be the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board. But contrary to the general feeling I think that the public have, that there is liaison between the medical profession and the Workmen's Compensation Board — and there is — the fact that the compensation board medical employees of the staff of the medical department, not infrequently veto the stated written medical opinion of the ordinary private practitioner. Oh, you clapped — that's fine. In other words, you are obviously of the sentiment that an employee of a government agency must obviously be correct when perhaps five or six other doctors are wrong. That is the point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, and if I haven't made the point, I'll try again.

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

MR. WALLACE: Oh I'm sorry, I beg your pardon. I thought you were supporting the fact that one employee of the board obviously knows more than sometimes five or six other doctors. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.

I'm glad to hear that you accept the fact that a medical judgment is based on a great deal of evidence. It's very frustrating to medical men trying to both protect the patient's health and his interests by giving a fair opinion of what the medical condition really is and how it was created. It's very frustrating to have three or four, sometimes five medical opinions agreeing about the patient's condition and then to have a decision and such a consensus vetoed by medical staff of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

I'll have a great deal more to say in this regard when we discuss the bill on review boards, because what I'm trying to put across is the fact that we must have completely objective medical advice. With the utmost respect to the medical staff of the board, they are employed by the board and it's the old story, that not only must justice be done, but it must seem to be done. The present mechanism causes a great deal of hardship, I believe, for many injured and diseased and disabled workmen.

I would hope, in passing, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister would answer the question on the order paper — I forget the number, but it's relating to decisions of the board. Before we come to debate the bill it would be most useful to have the information in that question.

On the same theme, there is often delay before a

[ Page 1395 ]

workman is treated because the attending physician has to contact the board to get certain measures of permission to proceed with treatment. In that regard again, I feel that if a physician and perhaps one or two specialists have decided that a man should have a certain operation, I really don't feel that some other doctor sitting in an office in Vancouver is likely to be able to know with any degree of certainty or efficiency that the advice of these three other doctors should or should not be approved.

It seems to me again, the essential medical justification of the case should be decided by the local private physicians or surgeons, as the case may be. I understand, for example, in Saskatchewan they have a very small medical staff which acts only in an advisory capacity, and that this has worked very well.

The other point that I think should be raised, and where I again think that workmen are not fairly treated, relates to this delightful escape hatch called pre-existing disease.

What I'm trying to explain, Mr. Chairman, is that if you X-rayed the spines of all of us sitting on the floor of the House, almost without exception — except for perhaps the youngest Members of the House — you could detect what we call lipping of vertebral bones, which is apparently a part and parcel of the ageing process of the human being.

Time, and time, and time again, the Workmen's Compensation Board simply takes refuge in X-ray pictures which show pre-existing disease. Now we don't want to take up the time of the House quoting examples, which I certainly could quote. I have one particularly distressing case which I will mention. But ask any doctor who deals with the compensation board, "What is the most frustrating element of indecisions?" This is the frequent statement, "about pre-existing disease," and in particular, I'm talking about back problems.

I won't belabour that any more, except to say that I hope that this kind of problem will go far beyond the question of review boards — it's the whole realm of functioning of the board in this regard.

Another problem which concerns us in trying to help the workman, is the disclosure of information. There is often difficulty, even when the workman gives his written permission; that is difficulty in having information disclosed to unions, and to MLA's.

The other day — I'm dealing with another case — I got the most apologetic letter from one of the members of the board of the medical staff on the compensation board, although I had sent him a written signed document by the patient giving her full permission to disclose the details of the case. In this case I was acting as her MLA, not as her physician.

I think a point that is lost sight of in this whole question of compensation is that when the legislation is introduced or when it was first introduced, the principle exists that the workman is to be given fair play equivalent to the kind of justice he would receive were he dealing with the courts. If I'm wrong on that I'll be happy to be corrected, but it would be my understanding that in providing legislation and compensation and access to the compensation that the individual is actually surrendering certain rights which he would otherwise use to take his case to court.

Therefore — if that is a correct premise — surely in trying to ensure that he gets fair play and fair compensation the same rules that apply to the courts of this land should apply to the compensation board. If you take a case to court — a civil case, a car accident or some such situation — you can subpoena witnesses and you can ask any information that is relevant to the case to be disclosed.

I am coming dangerously close to getting onto the question of review so I'll leave it at that. But the fact is that in general terms for some of these reasons the workmen of this province I do not believe are getting fair play with the Workmen's Compensation Board.

I would like to say a little bit about rehabilitation. We don't feel, as practising physicians, that there is a complete degree of liaison and understanding between the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement and the doctor out in the community. It is often the arbitrary decision of the board as to whether or not a person receives rehabilitation.

Here again, cases quite frequently occur where the rehabilitation staff are at odds on the question of the diagnosis, and sometimes on treatment also. I think Alberta can teach us a great deal. They have a high reputation nationally as emphasizing rehabilitation in a very effective way.

There's also a lack of success in relocating workers after a disability or disease has been treated. I think again it isn't just a question of how much money or how much compensation the patient might receive. It's a question of being able to function again, if not in the job he was previously in, certainly in some suitable other type of employment. This does not carry a good record in this province — the whole record in relation to rehabilitation.

Finally I would like to raise the case again that I've mentioned in this House — this is now the third time of asking. It's like trying to get the Minister's salary — you have to ask more than once. This is in relation to the subject of exposure to asbestos. I know that the Minister is well aware of the problem, but I'm not sure that the severity and the risk involved here has been fully appreciated in the past.

I won't go through the whole detail of this case, but it's to try and emphasize the point when I'm talking about justice for the workmen. I'm repeating what I said twice already in this House: if that is our sincere purpose in setting up the compensation board then surely we must accept the same principle that I

[ Page 1396 ]

mentioned in the courts of the land — that, if there is reasonable doubt, that reasonable doubt should be cast in favour of the workman.

In court you can't always completely prove that somebody is guilty or innocent. Very often with disabled workmen, particularly in the realm of lung disease, which probably is caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos, you cannot prove it 100 per cent.

This case of Mr. Jack that I've quoted before is the most shameful example, in my view, of how the compensation board is taking a completely rigid, unbending and almost inhuman attitude to a situation where the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the fact that this man now has 20 per cent of lung function, as it happens — and I don't want to go into medical details.

I just want to talk in general terms and say that here we have a man seriously disabled. The record shows that he was working in close confined quarters for the federal government — in the dockyard, in engine rooms, in boiler rooms, and in very confined spaces where the lack of preventive measures is absolutely shocking in this day and age. It's all documented here and the Minister knows about it.

The fact is that the federal government even today have not upgraded, to the degree that they should, the known safety measures that are required in the presence of asbestos — damping the dust, using exhaust fans, giving masks to the workmen, and so on.

The point is that this man worked for several years. He left the navy one week in grade A condition and started in the dockyard the next week. We have this bugaboo again — that he had some pre-existing disease in his lungs. But there's not a shred of evidence, none whatever. Somebody, somewhere along the line in the compensation board, dropped in this phrase "pre-existing disease."

Because you can have asbestosis for up to 15 or 20 years before it shows up on an X-ray, the man can only produce a great deal of evidence, such as the fact that of the 7 or 8 workmen that he was in closest contact with for several years two of them have died, with exactly the same symptoms. Their diagnosis was proved at autopsy: they both had asbestosis in conjunction with cancer, which is caused by the asbestos exposure. We have a third man in the team who has now been proven — and he's still alive — to have asbestosis.

Three out of 8 of them who worked together, and this is the fourth man — how much more evidence we have to provide before a man can get justice and compensation I just don't know.

As to the question of this other man, I am not at liberty to mention his name since I haven't talked to him. But he has been re-located, I understand, in the dockyard doing a clerical job but being paid tradesman's wages. He's paid as much as he would have been paid if he had been able to continue his original occupation.

I think it's important not only for the workmen but for society as a whole — the whole question of asbestos exposure, not only in confined quarters or in industry.

I'm sure everybody saw the headline in the paper that it's a "time bomb ticking away." I think that was a rather overdramatic description. But this Doctor Selikof from the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York is a very well-known and highly-respected international expert on this subject.

I would just like to quote some of the statements that he's made about asbestos. He said that he feels that exposure to this will claim a million lives by the year 2000 and that millions of other persons are exposed to asbestos fibres to an unknown degree every day of their lives without their knowledge.

He told the committee that more than 3,000 consumer products and a host of building materials contain asbestos, which accumulates in the human lung. He gives some examples — talcum powder, polished rice, papier mache used in art classes, and so on. The food and drug administration last year issued regulations banning the use of asbestos in garments and has proposed a ban on the use of talc and talcum powder in food packaging, because of its asbestos content.

I won't read the whole article, but the fact is that here is an element in our environment the danger of which is well recognized at close quarters. But now we have to realize, as we're doing about many elements in our environment, that greater danger exists than was previously considered.

Just to finish up, what really distresses me is the fact that a workman can produce a whole body of evidence, and yet he cannot prove it. In this particular man's case he could only prove it by having a surgical operation to remove a piece of his lung and have the lung diagnosed under the microscope. The man's health is such that the operation would kill him.

So he's probably like the other two unfortunate gentlemen, in that his diagnosis will be proved on the autopsy table. Then everybody'll say, "Oh, what a pity. Really he should have had help while he was still alive." That's really what I'm asking.

[Ms. Young in the chair]

HON. MR. KING: Madam Chairman, the points which the Member for Oak Bay makes are certainly well taken. Having dealt with workmen's compensation cases for quite a number of years myself, I'm intimately familiar with the problems he outlines.

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

[ Page 1397 ]

to make a completely accurate medical determination on. I can only agree with the Member for Oak Bay that in those instances certainly I feel that the benefit of the doubt should by all means go to the workman. I'm certainly receptive to any changes in the Workmen's Compensation Act which would make this more implicit.

It is my intention to include the Workmen's Compensation Act in the hearings that I will be conducting in the coming months. Certainly I want to take a look at the whole situation.

I am interested in the Member's recommendation, Madam Chairman, that perhaps there's a case for the total abolition of the medical staff of the board. It's something that hadn't quite occurred to me in that sense. But I would point out further that there is an avenue where decisions of the medical staff of the Workmen's Compensation Board can be challenged and appealed now, through section 55, medical appeal.

The composition of the appeal tribunal is a recommendation of a medical person by the union, one by management and an independent chairman. So there is that appeal process available to the workman, once a case for a bona fide medical dispute is established in the adjudication of the case. So they do have that avenue; the medical staff of the board do not have the absolute final authority.

I cannot but agree, though, that it seems that there have been inflexible decisions made. Certainly I'm sympathetic to many of the comments that the Member has made. I would look forward to and indeed invite the Member to by all means make submissions to me over the coming months on some of the changes that he thinks might be brought about to grant a better degree of justice to injured claimants under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

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

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am very glad that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) brought up the problem of medical treatment under workmen's compensation, I get a great number of cases in relation to this and very often I am not convinced that the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board is exactly what I had hoped for.

In this relation I would like to say that these are people who have been on compensation for quite some time. They are probably older workmen who, as a result of their injury or illness, have had either emotional or mental problems that result in back pains or leg pains or something of that kind. Their own doctor will verify that they require the needed medication; but when the Workmen's Compensation Board is phoned, they say that it has no relation to the injury. I contend, Madam Chairman, that it does have relation to the injury; that mental, emotional and physical ailments are so closely connected that I'm sure that most doctors would find it difficult to be able to separate them.

Secondly, I would like to mention something concerning bargaining rights for the public service. I hope that consideration has been given by the Labour department to expand bargaining rights for people in the public service so that they will feel compatible with others, and that promotions will not necessarily have to be on a political level but can be in relation to tenure.

I would also like to ask the Minister if anything is being considered in relation to apprenticeship and demand for joining a union of people who are working in service stations. By this I mean the mechanics and the other employees. Complaints come, not only from the public but also from the automotive retailers, that a lot of the young people who are employed as mechanics come in without any training at all. Not only is it bad for the name of the station where they're employed, but it also is bad for your car and mine.

I don't know whether this has anything to do with labour, Madam Chairman, but I should like to ask: has the BCTF been restored to full membership or are teachers still allowed to opt out of the BCTF?

I believe that our trade union movement and the various authorities in relation to the British Columbia Teachers' Federation are the ones that have raised the level of the working class and given them better working conditions throughout the years. Breaking down trade unions or breaking down organizations like the BCTF is bad for labour in general and for the standard of living of all people.

As the trade union movement and the BCTF, organizations like that, raise living standards and raise wage levels, other people get the same. We would never have had these wage levels if it hadn't been through the work of the trade union movement over the years.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Hon. Member. A point of order. That would come under the Public Schools Act, the relationship of the BCTF.

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

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Madam Chairman, I presume when the Second Member for Vancouver South was referring to bargaining rights for public employees that she was referring to civil servants, government employees.

[ Page 1398 ]

MRS. WEBSTER: That's right.

HON. MR. KING: Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, that jurisdiction comes within the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Hall) department. So I can hardly comment on that at this point.

The points which she makes on the Workmen's Compensation Board are well taken. As I indicated earlier, the whole Workmen's Compensation Act will indeed come under review. Certainly we're taking a close look at the entire operation.

While I'm on my feet I might respond to the comments again for the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on the asbestosis problem that he outlined. I think it's related to some of the comments the Second Member for Vancouver South made too.

The problem of asbestosis is grim in terms of its effect on the adjudication of the claim by the workman. But I think perhaps what is more significant is the need that it demonstrates for much more knowledge in the industrial hygiene area and much stricter preventive measures to protect workers against silicosis, asbestosis and these types of diseases, respiratory problems and so on.

It does seem to me that there must be much more collaboration between my department and the Workmen's Compensation Board and my colleague here in the Health department (Hon. Mr. Cocke), to establish a greater degree of expertise, a greater degree of knowledge in finding the areas where there is a real problem and establishing preventive measures to protect the workers and also developing strict enforcement of such provisions.

We're certainly working on this and I anticipate that there will be action taken very shortly between our departments to this end.

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

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): I want to make a few remarks on the speech of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) yesterday. It was quite apparent that he was not aware of the labour legislation in B.C. where workers in this province do have a choice in the seventh or eighth month of each year to decertify or change unions. It is quite apparent that he is against international unions. I shudder when I think what would happen on this question if he were in the Government here today. I think, Madam Chairman, that there is a place in the trade union movement for international unions and national unions.

In the face of the development of international conglomerates, the need for broad international trade unionism is today far greater than at any other time in our history. If the interest of the workers throughout the world are to be protected, this principle of international trade unions will have to be much further extended. The word conglomerate has come into everyday use to describe the rapidly growing practices of the octopus-like corporations with tentacles extending into the most remote parts of the world.

Decisions vitally affecting workers and their families now are often made in boardrooms thousands of miles away, by financiers who have never seen the plant where these people work and who, at any event, may be regarded as a relatively insignificant part of the conglomerate's operations.

There was much criticism of international unions in Canada, but the critics conveniently ignore the fact that the corporations for whom the trade union members work are becoming more and more international. The truth is that today a great many workers in both our countries don't really have any idea of exactly whom they are working for. Certainly they get their pay cheques from some specific company, but the ownership and the effective control of that company is often lost in the maze of corporate structures.

About 70 per cent of the trade union members in Canada hold membership in international unions. In a number of industries this is just plain common sense. As far as the Canadian members are concerned, it provides far greater union strength than otherwise would be within their reach.

In our country we are now experiencing frequent attacks on the principle of international trade unions. Employer groups and others sympathetic to them, including such people as newspaper editorial writers, are proving very free with their advice to Canadian workers, suggesting they should have their own purely Canadian unions instead of having alliances with their brothers and sisters on the other side of the border.

It would be foolish to minimize the recent rash of breakaways from continental unions. I say "continental" unions because, really, international unions — we are not using them in that term when we talk about the U.S. unions — these are bi-national unions.

However, it should be noted that they are by no means the only ones affected. There have been several cessations from national unions in recent years, but nothing in modern labour history even approaches, in size, the importance of the massive breakaways this year in Quebec of some 60,000 workers from the Confederation of National Trade Unions to form a new labour body. Both of them are Quebec-based organizations without even the slightest hint of internationalism.

As long as unions continue to do the job for their collective membership, they should be maintained in whatever form is desirable to do that job. Should they fail to live up to their mandates, then adjustments or changes should certainly be made from within their own structure. History is replete with such occurrences as the movement continually re-

[ Page 1399 ]

generates itself.

The one recurring theme throughout the entire history of the organized labour movement is that it belongs to the membership and is entirely a creature of their desire and as such, it can only change direction and shape at the membership's command. There has never been any deviation from this principle. Self-appointed saviours — such as the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), if we can call him a saviour of the union movement — have appeared from time to time throughout our history, and will no doubt continue to do so.

The messages these people, or groups of people, bring to us are often couched in persuasive terms, but more than often hide the true nature of their intent — the problems that tiny men with the small axes to grind seem to have.

The current crop of some politicians and some ex-politicians is certainly no different, although they appear to be burning with a convenient nationalistic zeal. The men and women of the organized labour movement in B.C. and Canada will judge for themselves if what they are saying is in concert with their desires.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, yesterday, did not mention the central labour body in Canada; did not mention that there are over 1,800,000 workers who belong to a Canadian labour organization which is central to that of Canada. A body that has a convention once every two years and passes policy by Canadians and for Canadians.

It is often said that there is control in this organization by the AFL-CIO. There is absolutely no control over the central body by the AFL-CIO. To illustrate this fact, take a look at some of the differences that have occurred in the past. The most recent one is the Burke-Hartke bill which is a protectionist bill and the Canadian labour movement has been violently opposed to this bill which is supported by the AFL-CIO.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. RADFORD: I certainly don't. The only true relationship between the Canadian labour movement and the AFL-CIO is purely fraternal. Relationships between the CLC and its American counterpart, the AFL-CIO, however, are friendly at times, as they are with all of the other labour movements in the free countries of the world. As I said, while they agree on many of the fundamental issues, there are some such as the Burke-Hartke bill.

In international affairs, the Canadian labour movement advocated the diplomatic recognition of Red China and her re-admission to the United Nations long before this became fashionable in other Canadian and U.S. circles. Similarly, in relationship with the Cuba situation, it has taken a position diametrically opposed to that of the AFL-CIO.

The CLC is also an enthusiastic supporter of the international labour organization while the AFL-CIO have been decidedly cool toward this agency of the United Nations. The CLC for years has been one of the most vocal opponents of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war.

In the matter of affiliations, the United Auto Workers, who left the AFL-CIO some years ago on ideological grounds, have remained an active affiliate of the Canadian labour movement.

Finally, on the issues of political action the Canadian labour movement, strongly supported by its national and some continental unions, endorsed social democracy. This is not entirely true of the AFL-CIO.

Yesterday, a statement was made that thousands and millions of dollars go across the line. The statement was made that these figures are available in Statistics Canada. This could be true that they are available in Statistics Canada, but the ex-leader of the provincial Liberal Party should know that the Corporations and Labour Unions Return Acts are a federal department. Any such examination of international unions would, of course, be incomplete without also looking at the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, called CALURA — the federal Department of Trade and Commerce report which attempts to portray in statistical form the structure and financial picture of labour unions operating in Canada.

Earlier this year, an item in a Canadian newspaper based on the 1969 report of the Corporations and Labour Unions Return Act, was headed: "U.S. unions spend $31 million, got $41 million in Canadian dues." The item was typical of the treatment usually given to CALURA and findings by most of the media. The method of reporting information on labour unions used by the federal Department of Trade and Commerce, is responsible for much of this misleading information.

The incomplete and imprecise nature of the financial data concerning Canadian operations of international unions and national unions virtually invite unfair comparisons and provoke wild headlines.

When describing the contents of the Corporation and Labour Unions Returns Act reports, the media invariably and unscrupulously avoid any mention of the following disclaimer, which is carried prominently in each edition of the report, and I quote:

"It should be emphasized that the data presented in the tables do not provide complete information on labour unions' financial affairs in Canada. For instance, compliance with the reporting provisions of the legislation request that financial statements filed by international unions disclose only those selective expenditures incurred on behalf of their membership in Canada, namely (a) salaries, wages and remunerations of officers

[ Page 1400 ]

and employees resident in Canada; (b) strike payments to members of locals in Canada; and (c) pensions and welfare payments to beneficiaries in Canada, thus ignoring the cost to internationals of any additional services rendered to their Canadian membership.

"Furthermore, the reporting provisions of the statute apply to parent labour organizations only. The financial statements required by the legislation reflect only financial transactions within the authority of the parent labour organizations."

John Crispo, the dean of the Faculty of Management Studies of the University of Toronto, recently stated that the CALURA reports as they are now prepared, "play into the hands of the nuts…"

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. RADFORD: I think he is.

"They play into the hands of the nuts — rabid ultra-nationalists who claim that the international unions are making a profit in Canada.

"The distortion stems from the limitations of the Canadian expenditures of international unions through the previously mentioned strike benefits, salaries, pensions and other welfare expenses."

Crispo was concerned that some voices opposed to international unions are vested interests and cited the Committee for an Independent Canada as nationalistic and a bandwagon for their own benefits.

Studies have been done, Madam Chairman. Two years ago studies were done by the central labour body in Canada which proved that more autonomy was needed by many of the Canadian workers within international unions in Canada. It was felt that many of the constitutions of the international unions required changes and that many international unions were still in love with their constitutions.

As I say, Madam Chairman, there is a need for international unions and there is also a need for national unions within Canada. The speaker yesterday, the Hon. First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), forgot to mention that two of our largest unions in Canada, CUPE — the second largest union in Canada — and PSAC, make up a great number within the Canadian labour movement.

I'd like to quote again, Madam Chairman, from John Crispo's book on international unions. He states this:

"The future of international unions in Canada probably depends more than anything else on their willingness to adjust themselves to the Canadian fact.

"Whether or not nationalism becomes a potent force, the challenge of accommodating international unions to the special needs of the Canadian membership will remain.

"The Canadian-American trade union relationship may eventually set the pattern for a worldwide development. Unions can no longer think in terms of narrow national boundaries if they are to protect the interests of their members. It seems possible that as international corporate empires spread throughout the world, multi-national unions will follow.

"The Canadian-American experience is unlikely to be taken as a precedent, however, unless the international link between Canada and the United States proves successful."

I say, Madam Chairman, for the future of the working people of both countries and perhaps the world, let's hope that this will be the case. I'm not yet finished, Hon. Member. It's always nice to have two punch lines.

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

MR. RADFORD: Before I close, Madam Chairman, I'd like to pose two questions to the Minister of Labour. The first question is — and I've asked this before: is the Minister going to consider, or has he already looked into, the question of excessive overtime being worked by some of the corporations within the Province and some of the union members within the province? As I pointed out in a previous speech, there are many members within a unit working overtime while some of the other members are being laid off.

Another case came to me the other day, where in Kamloops three workers at a pulp mill are going through an arbitration case right now because they refused to work more overtime. They were laid off because of this. Apparently in the past three months these three workers have worked hundreds of hours of overtime. They were just fed up with working so much overtime. Because of this they were laid off and there's an arbitration case right now in fact.

I related before the case in Prince George, where 21 maintenance men within one department worked a total of 7,400 overtime hours last year. I think, Mr. Minister, that we should be looking into this. We should cut out the blanket permits that have been issued in the past for working overtime.

Another question I'd like to ask the Minister is whether he is considering changing the so-called open season of the seventh and eighth month to any other date. Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: So you're willing to relinquish your place in the speaking order, I gather. The Hon.

[ Page 1401 ]

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Ms. Chairperson, just a brief word or two on the remarks on the Member for Vancouver South. I know that you yourself are keenly interested in this matter of Canadian versus American unions.

The point that I wanted to make last night, and which I repeat again today, is that I am not against these American unions, as the Member suggests. I am really in favour of Canadian unions, if that is the wish of the Canadian worker. I invited letters from Canadian workers who were members of the these American unions and said I would apologize to the Minister of Labour and to the Member if I'm wrong in my judgment that Canadian workers really wish to belong to these American unions.

Ms. Chairperson, the people who are being harmed by these restrictive agreements which the American unions are imposing…

MR. RADFORD: A point of order.

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

MR. RADFORD: He stated that I said "American unions." I never mentioned the word "American." I said "bi-national" or "international".

MR. McGEER: Ms. Chairperson, I quite accept that. "International unions" — that's his term. "American unions" is mine.

Ms. Chairperson, the companies and the workers for the companies that have been hurt by these restrictive agreements imposed by these American unions are not great international conglomerates. The Victoria Paving Company? Century Steel? Butler Bros.? Western Reinforcing? These are local British Columbia corporations.

The three arrangements that have been harmful to the Canadian union worker are the subcontractors clause, which prevents a contractor from awarding a subcontract for work within the union's jurisdiction to any subcontractor, unless he has an agreement with the union. In other words, all of these small companies that I talked about yesterday are companies that have been either harmed or destroyed by the American unions. That's what's wrong with the subcontractors clause. It's not these big international corporations that are suffering, but the growing Canadian corporations and the Canadian unions that have agreements with them.

The second is the non-affiliation clause, which allows a member of a union having such a clause in its collective agreement to lay down tools whenever such a subcontractor appears on the job.

The third one is the hot-cargo clause, which makes it possible for the union having such a clause in its collective agreement to refuse to handle, receive, ship or transport materials from any jurisdiction which they themselves name as being an unfair producer.

The consequence of these three clauses, which have not been specifically outlawed under labour relations in this province, is that American unions can use and have used intimidation and threats to destroy Canadian unions. This is all that we're asking the Minister to cure; not to outlaw international unions — that would be wrong and unfair — but to outlaw those restrictive clauses that are preventing Canadian unions from getting started and are preventing the Canadian worker from having his destiny within his own country.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to say very much during these estimates, but just a couple of points, particularly in reference to some comments made last evening, in one instance by the former Minister — in his case the "Minister of Management, " in my view.

He suggested that there was no problem with workers in British Columbia having the right to organize in this province. I'm a little surprised that the former Minister could make that kind of statement. He knows as well as I do and as well as the rest of the Members of this House know, that the percentage of organized workers in British Columbia has gone down over the last 10 to 12 years since 1958.

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

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, one of the problems when workers are trying to organize in the first instance is that in many cases they are excluded from being able to organize, because the definition of "employee" in the Labour Relations Act is quite restrictive. Many categories of people are not eligible to be organized because of the specific definition of the word "employee."

However, if they are able to qualify to organize, they then have to deal in many instances with employers who are determined that they not be organized. In this case the employer has all the marbles again because, in the sections dealing with the rights of employees and the rights of employers, the fair labour practices section, the onus of proof that there has been wrongdoing has always lain with the worker and not with the employer. When we change our labour legislation I'm hopeful that we will change this onus section so that employees will not

[ Page 1402 ]

I have to prove they were innocent in their activities and will not have to prove that the company was guilty.

Let's say a group of workers have been able to get through all the difficulties that are contained in the legislation and finally do gain certification, even though many of the workers in that particular plant or location may feel intimidated and may not have wanted to sign the cards because of fear of being fired — and in many cases being fired for some other reason, according to the company. Let's say they are able to get through this process.

They then sit down to negotiate their first collective agreement. In instance after instance in this province over the past few years companies have effectively refused to negotiate, and I can cite name after name — Sandringham in Victoria is one; Dominion Motors in Vancouver is another; Nu-Life Nutrition, A.B. Dick, and the list is endless. It goes on and on. They have refused effectively to bargain.

So what do the employees do? Finally at one stage they say, "Our only recourse is to go out on strike." So they have their legal strike.

What do the companies do then? They hire "scabs." They hire strikebreakers. As we know in Sandringham and in a number of other cases, the union is powerless to deal with that kind of situation unless the rest of the population in the area is prepared to boycott the premises, to not deliver goods and services and to not purchase material from that outfit. But as we all know, that's illegal in this province — another law that we're going to have to deal with if working people are going to be given the chance to organize effectively in this province.

There's a lot more to say about that point. But I just wanted to point out to the former Minister that I think his comments about there being the right to organize now really aren't quite accurate.

I was more concerned, Mr. Chairman, with the comments made by the former leader — and possibly the future leader — of the Liberal Party; the terribly demagogic speech that he made last night; totally irresponsible in my view, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: As always.

MR. GABELMANN: …a speech that leads to a headline in this morning's Vancouver Province that says, "Canadian Unions Strangled — McGeer."

AN HON. MEMBER: Irresponsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. GABELMANN: The PSAC, CUPE, the government employees, the B.C. Telephone workers, the Fruit and Vegetable Workers in the Okanagan, none of those unions is being strangled; yet they're being maligned by this Member who seeks nothing more than headlines, whether he's in a public accounts committee meeting or in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! Order.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the estimates, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I think we need some rational discussion, if that's possible in this House, on the whole question of where we're going with unions in terms of what kind of structures they have.

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

MR. GABELMANN: I think of course that it is essential that the workers themselves make those decisions about what kind of structures they want. If their particular union has bylaws that prohibit the kind of structures that they want, they have the recourse within their particular union to sort that problem out, as have many unions in this country — the Steelworkers and the Autoworkers are prime examples of unions that have gained the autonomy that they require in this country. The IWA is another classic example.

I don't think that government or elected Members should be telling workers what to do, though perhaps we should be involved in a philosophical discussion of the directions that might be desirable for working people in this world. In my view, Mr. Chairman, what is essential in this world is that we really do have international unions. That is an important function for affluent North America to play in reducing the poverty-stricken areas in this world.

It seems to me that when a company can put its plants into 27 and 30 different countries in this world, that one union should be following that company around the world, organizing that plant, so that the strength of the North American workers can help to raise the living standards of those people in Brazil, Italy and other parts of the world.

If we want, as Canadians and North Americans, to improve the standard of living in the world, the most effective weapon at our disposal is trade union organization on a worldwide basis. Our contributions to the United Nations are important, but they are not going to be nearly as effective as a process of expanding unions.

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

[ Page 1403 ]

Chemical Federation, which is an international trade union, headquarters in Geneva. Its secretary-general is a former Canadian. That union has as part of its membership oil and chemical unions around the world. They're organizing in Italy, Brazil, Japan and in many other countries in the world. They are doing more to raise the living standard of working people around the world than any United Nations agency that I know of. If we can encourage that kind of direction, Mr. Chairman, we'll be doing our part in that worldwide problem of poverty.

The kinds of comments made by the expert on labour from Point Grey, from the University of British Columbia (Mr. McGeer), who in my view doesn't know a thing about labour, serve only a narrow, insular nationalism that will do the people of British Columbia no good and will do the people of the world no good.

As a matter of fact, I have some serious doubts about the trend that's happening in this country towards nationalism. Yes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: I'm concerned that the…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, really! Let's be fair, Mr. Chairman. Be fair to this side of the House. You're bought and sold by the Opposition.

MR. GABELMANN: That's O.K., Mr. Chairman. I'll leave the whole question of nationalism. We'll get another chance in this House to debate that question.

I want to say just another word and then I'll close, because I have a hunch that some of the Liberal Members would like to be out of here by May 1. I think I'll just cut it a bit shorter.

That is the question of why workers are striking out, why workers are reacting against their unions in this province and in this country. Workers in Quebec in many instances are striking out against Canadian unions, asking for Quebec unions. I have heard instances of workers in this province who have said, "Look, I want to get out of my union. I want a Canadian union." I ask them what union they're in. They are in the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

We're dealing not with a question of nationalism, Mr. Chairman, but with a question of frustration, a question of alienation, a question of people not being able to deal effectively with society, not being able to deal effectively with their employer, hating their job situation, wishing they could get out of it, not being able to strike out against the company because the company in most instances is foreign-owned, or is remote, or is not in daily contact with the worker.

The only way he has to strike out is to go to his union meeting and to raise heck at that point. That's fair enough. That's the strength of the labour movement; it's democratic and the workers can do that. But in many instances, they're not really striking out against the union; they're striking out against the alienation and the frustration that they feel in their jobs.

We should understand that, and we should try as legislators to try and create situations in this province where workers don't have to live with the kind of drudgery they have, knowing that when they leave school at 18 or 20, they're faced with 40 or 45 years of working at a job that has no material or spiritual benefits to them, knowing that they're living not for living, but living just for working. That's what is creating a lot of the problems we are facing in this province.

I want to make one final comment, Mr. Chairman, and I think it really can sum up why the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey's (Mr. McGeer) comments should be disregarded.

He was talking about a three-way pact. I just want to inform the Member for Point Grey, Mr. Chairman, that the three-way pact is not as he defined it, but rather is the Operating Engineers, the Teamsters and the tunnel and rock local of the Labourers' International Union. It was a group formed not to strangle Canadian unions, but was a group formed to involve itself in raiding and stopping raiding against another international union. That's what the three-way pact was.

I think that the Member for Point Grey should at least, if he's going to speak on labour matters, try and get some of his information correct first.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all I would like very much if the Hon. Members would join me in welcoming, to our gallery a group of students. I

[ Page 1404 ]

understand there are two schools here now, one Magee high school and the other Queen Elizabeth. If I happened to get the wrong school, I'm very sorry about that.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to return from the philosophy of the labour movement and get down to a little bit about the bread and butter side of benefits and workmen's compensation, which was being discussed a little bit earlier this morning. I'm going to be short in my remarks and if I have the ear of the Minister, I'm going to refer to three specific instances and suggest to the Hon. Minister that perhaps these are areas whereby his staff could indeed spend some time studying and see if we can come up with some kind of an effective remedy to what are rather serious defects in the Workmen's Compensation Act.

This is the first situation. We have an individual who is a logging truck driver in the Cranbrook area in 1950. At that time he sustained a serious injury. His pay rate at that time in 1950 was $1.10 per hour. Since 1950 he has been receiving a pension from the board. He says in his letter to me:

"The medical services provided by the board have been most satisfactory. However within the past five years it has been necessary for me to undergo a series of operations all relating to my original injury. This has resulted in a total of at least six months when I was completely unable to work,"

and this is the rub,

"But the rate of time-lost payments that I receive is based on my wages at the time of the injury."

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

"Since my injury occurred 22 years ago, you can easily see how unrealistic this ruling is."

I gather, Mr. Chairman, that the rate of pay in a similar job up in the east Kootenay district today would be about $4.95 an hour. Now it is true of course that due to the consumer price index the individual has received annual increases since 1966. But still, in relating his payments that he received today to the amount of money that he earned at the time of his injury in 1950, it is in rough calculation about 500 per cent lower than he would be receiving today in wage. I would suggest about the same type of lowness exists in so far as pension received.

I do hope that the Minister would look into this particular area. Not only that, I would like to have a statement from him today that he considers that the philosophy that has been enunciated by this individual in this particular fact situation is correct, and that we can relate the time-lost payments to a figure or to a standard that is far more current. Merely going on the rate of pay at the time of the injury when you get a situation such as this, is really and truly, in fact, a most unfair standard.

The second point that I would like to refer to is one that was mentioned a little bit earlier in this session by one of the more senior and quieter and more pleasant members of the socialistic cabinet.

He drew to the attention of the House a very valid situation, and that deals with a person who would be fatally injured in an industrial accident. He made the point to this Legislature that the Workmen's Compensation Board is responsible for his dependents by a pension for his widow for life, or until she remarries, and an allowance for each child until a certain age.

But the responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to the family is in lieu of depriving them of their breadwinner. It's a recognition that the family is a unit. The board well accepts the responsibility for this individual and his family by a pension all based on his past earnings, and I've criticized the past-earning situation already.

But this pension, Mr. Chairman, is paid in lieu of depriving him of the ability to provide for himself and his family. But the responsibility to his family, too his dependents, will only continue after his death if his death results from the injury or disease. But if the death results from any other cause, then the responsibility to the family ceases.

I'd like to ask the Hon. Minister whether the liability to this family should continue to the same extent it would have had the breadwinner died from the cause of the accident. The point that was made by the Minister was this: the compensation was given for the loss of his ability to provide for himself and his family, and whether death occurred at the time of total disability or later should have no different bearing on the needs of the family than if he had died at the time of the injury. I think that this is a very, very valid suggestion.

I don't think that if a person does die from some other ailment that the board should be relieved of its responsibility to this family unit. In so far as his ability as a breadwinner goes, it has been substituted by the board at the time he became totally disabled. The fact of a later death is really and truly only incidental.

I'd ask the Hon. Minister that where there is a total disability and death does result at a later date for any cause, should not the Act apply in so far as dependents are concerned.

I'm not going to keep it a secret from the House any longer because I can see him sitting there smiling and blushing and being delighted that someone from the Opposition is raising his cause. This suggestion was made by the affable Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), but he doesn't seem to have made a dent in his colleagues in cabinet. I wonder why. You know, he's quite a nice chap, apart from the fact that he's completely sending the mining industry into ruin. (Laughter). But apart from that, he's quite pleasant.

[ Page 1405 ]

He doesn't beat his wife, she says. So I'd like very much to hear from the Hon. Minister on that point.

The third and last point. I would very much recommend to the Minister that he bring in an amendment this year to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, whatever would be the appropriate amendment, to provide an election…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member that he cannot propose legislation.

MR. GARDOM: Under any circumstances, I'm just suggesting that the Minister might propose it. I'm just trying to throw a little bread on the water, Mr. Chairman.

But I do hope that the Hon. Minister would give consideration to something which will cure this fact situation. We have an individual and he was working in a store late at night and it was burglarized — he was shot in the stomach and very seriously injured. He went to the hospital where he remained for several months. He had more than one operation and he had serious post-operative difficulties. He contacted pneumonia, and still today is far from recovered.

Now by virtue of the fact that he was an employee in a store, the exemption provisions in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, Mr. Chairman, apply because he was covered under workmen's compensation.

Now, the point that I'm making is this: there is no provision for him to receive loss of wages. He receives the full amount of award that he's entitled to under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act. But he's not entitled to receive from them the loss of wages that he incurred — he was the manager of this store. He's not entitled to receive compensation for his loss of clothing. All of his clothing was destroyed as a result of blood stains and being ripped apart when he went to the hospital and was receiving emergency treatment. Among other things, he also lost such items as his shoes, his wallet and so on.

Now, under the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, Mr. Chairman, this individual, had he been a customer in the store, would have been entitled to make a claim under the Act, and he would have been entitled to seek a lump sum award. Under the provisions of the Act — section 13 specifically — which I draw to the Minister's attention, there's an arrangement whereby a claimant can receive a lump sum payment to the extent of $15,000 and, in the case of periodic payments, the income from a capital sum of $50,000.

In this particular case of which I'm speaking, the individual would have far preferred and would have been far better off and been better compensated by society — and this is social legislation. It was proposed by our side of the House, and also by the Government when they were official Opposition. It's social legislation.

I do feel that the individual should be able to have the election whether or not he will proceed under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is totally denied to this individual today. He has written letters to the cabinet concerning the point, and I gather he's unfortunately not received replies. I don't believe one went to the Hon. Minister — one did not.

But I would draw this to your attention. I would ask you very seriously to consider the question that I've raised. And I would commend you to give serious thought to introducing remedial legislation this session. And I'd much appreciate hearing the Hon. Minister's remarks on these three points.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the last point that the Second Member for Point Grey made, I'll certainly be prepared to discuss this situation with the Attorney General. Perhaps there is a good suggestion contained there for some more flexibility between those two pieces of legislation. I'll certainly investigate that possibility.

I'm not familiar with the case you referred to, but if the Member would like to provide me with a copy of the correspondence on it, I would certainly be willing to look into it.

With respect to the suggestion that was made by my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), and which has subsequently been endorsed by the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), that is a matter which is basically a philosophical one. And I think there's a good case to be made for the proposition that the liability of the board continues regardless of the reason for death. The earning power of the worker was obviously destroyed at the outset, and would not have been restored whether or not he lived. And it's an interesting point. It's certainly one that I would expect to hear a great deal more about during the period of time when we are considering amendments and changes to the existing Act.

Pensions under the WCB, of course, are related to the wage structure that existed at the time that the injury occurred. This is a pretty difficult proposition, because were we to try and relate those pensions on a retroactive basis to current wage scales, I think we'd be in a position of seriously impairing the workmen's compensation fund. However, there may well be some more effective mechanism developed than the cost of living index as a means of keeping the relationship of workmen's compensation pensions closer to the cost of living as it exists today and the wage scales that exist today. Again, I'm quite prepared to listen to presentations on that type of situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister

[ Page 1406 ]

of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Chairman and fellow Members, in case anybody gets the idea that I'm not still interested in the Workmen's Compensation Act, I thought that I had better say a few words. To what the Hon. Minister said, I think that I have probably put a "dent" in the cabinet in regards to some of these things.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm sure he'll be happy there. (Laughter).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I want to say congratulations to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, (Mr. Wallace) also, for bringing up the point he brought up. Because it only proves that the concept of workmen's compensation today should be entirely different from what it was at the time it was first inaugurated. The workman at that time traded off the right to sue his employer for compensation.

A lot of things were not considered. And the reason that they traded this off was because there were long periods of litigation in cases. Many times the worker didn't get the results that he should have got. And by trading this off we got the Workmen's Compensation Act.

We've had lawyers with very legalistic minds who have been trying to interpret the Workmen's Compensation Act over all these years. I don't think that some of them tried to interpret it with the intent that the Act should have.

Now the case that the Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) brought up, that I brought up previously — I've taken this up on a legalistic basis. I wrote to the compensation counsellor. I got a three or four page letter back explaining to me in legal terms why the interpretation of the Act was such. Now, I've sent another letter back — a long letter, too — explaining why I think that his legalistic mind does not work in the right way, in this regard. I don't know what the judge is going to determine. I don't know who the judge is who is listening to the case. But I hope that when the judge brings down his reward we'll finally win this case.

I've also noticed that in New Zealand they are bringing in a bill to cover the loss of the breadwinner, no matter whether he loses it by his job or some other place. And I've written to New Zealand asking them for a copy of the Act in order that we may be able to consider it also. I think that eventually there's going to have to be an overall compensation plan to do away with some of these inaccuracies or things that happen that we feel are not just, and to determine where we put the dividing line between whether a person got hurt on the job or off the job. I'm sure that the Hon. Minister is taking all these things into consideration but there's not enough hours in the day for some of us to get everything done that we might like to do.

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

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue one point a little further. Before the Minister says that I've accumulated new material, I want to say to the House that in all fairness to the other Members, as you indicated a little earlier, it appears that I was trying to do all the talking. So I allowed all the other Members to speak before raising my point.

We know very well that there's great pressure on the Premier to change the Ministry of Labour to the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). I think that it would be a mistake, really, to have the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour succeed the present Minister of Labour. Because the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), despite the fact that he is cynical from time to time, is a better Minister…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the administrative aspects of the estimates, please?

MR. CHABOT: There appears to be a complete misunderstanding on the part of the Minister on the question of so-called national agreements. He talks about changes that are necessary in the BNA Act. He says he's referred to it on a question of railways and so forth, interprovincial transport, and things of that nature. It has nothing to do with interprovincial companies operating in this province. They're subject to the labour laws of the federal government.

What I'm talking about is ad hoc national agreements of multi-national corporations that sign collective agreements. I don't know whether they sign them in back rooms or where they sign them. But they are signed. And they're superimposed upon the provincial scene at the expense of the existing contractors and workers of this province. They come in with "no strikes" and "no lockout" clauses and really disrupt collective bargaining.

The First Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Radford) did read a small article from the Crispo report. I don't know if it's the same one that I'll be referring to. He did indicate that he thought that he thought that Crispo was an expert in the field of labour relations. But the Goldenberg-Crispo report on construction labour relations did have this to say in 1967 on the question of national agreements:

"So called national contractors, or those capable, of handling multi-million dollar or even multi-billion dollar projects, operate under special considerations that can wreak havoc with a local

[ Page 1407 ]

collective bargaining relationship. When a national contractor invades an area to undertake a large project, that contractor pays the going area wages but does not become involved in local bargaining.

"Suppose that just prior to or during the commencement of a large scale public or private project, local contractors not engaged in this project are faced with negotiations involving several construction trade unions. The unions, knowing full well that the national contractor not only can help supply their members with work but will automatically agree to whatever wage rates can be wrested from the local contractors, have a field day. It is not an exaggeration to say that ordinary rules go out of the window. And the pressures the union might feel from a strike against the local contractors are removed by the presence of the national contractor."

That was in the Goldenberg-Crispo study on construction labour relations.

What they are saying there really is that a national agreement, or a so-called national agreement, puts a local British Columbia contractor at a serious disadvantage. A local contractor must abide by the existing rules, regulations and laws of this province, whereas a national agreement signer doesn't have to because he comes in with a "no strike," "no lockout" clause, pays the going rate, takes the workers away from the local contractors and puts them on his job site for a stipulated time — two to three years, depending on the length of the project.

What I am really saying is that we must take into consideration the local contractor because he provides a continuous source of jobs for our local workers in British Columbia while these multi-national corporations come in just for specific large projects. They virtually raid the cream of the workers from the local contractors to put on these specific projects. Then they're left in many instances with the situation where the best of the workers have been taken from them and have gone to these projects. Then, in the natural course, they must provide jobs for them after the multi-national corporation has left, having taken their profits out of British Columbia — which I know your Government is concerned about. I think that it's in the interests of British Columbians, of British Columbian workers and British Columbia investment to consider the abolition of these national agreements. They come in and they do frustrate the collective bargaining between the local contractors who must abide by the laws of British Columbia, and the local workers who get locked out or involved in a strike in British Columbia. I think it's a very serious problem, one which is confronting the contractors and the workers of this province.

I said a little earlier that I think that the existing construction industry that we have in British Columbia can cope with the type of projects that we are facing in the future. They've enlarged and they're capable of becoming involved in these large projects.

I think that you should really make these multi-national corporations that come in here with these "no strike," "no lockout" clauses on these national agreements, abide by the same conditions and regulations and face the same type of problems in the field of collective bargaining that other contractors in British Columbia do.

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

HON. MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The problems which the Member for Columbia River outlined have been with us for many, many years. Certainly they were with us when he occupied this office. I don't know what his recommendation would be for solving some of these problems. At the moment there is no mechanism on the statute books in the province to deal with those problems that he's outlined. But as I pointed out earlier, we are undertaking a review, we are inviting representations from industry and trade unions. Now if contractors within the province feel that they are being injuriously affected by the practices which the Member outlines, I'm sure they'll take this opportunity to make their views known to this department.

Significantly, I haven't heard too much about this problem from any group of contractors within the province. The Member for Columbia River seems to be intimately familiar with the situation. But certainly we're prepared to listen to any recommendations that come in.

Vote 124 approved.

Vote 125: general administration and labour standards, $1,141,488 — approved.

Vote 126: factories branch, $355,256 — approved.

On Vote 127: apprenticeship and industrial training branch, $6,640,014.

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

MR. CHABOT: A brief question on 127. There's been a substantial increase in staff in this particular branch. Does the Minister have any particular programmes in mind of various trades and apprenticeship programmes? There's been an increase, I know, in the allotment of dollars — not as substantial as it was last year. Could the Minister tell us what numbers he expects to train in the field of apprenticeship

[ Page 1408 ]

training?

HON. MR. KING: Yes. The number of apprentices under training has increased significantly. What is probably more significant is that the counselling services to those apprentices has increased very significantly. There was a severe shortage of staff which restricted the ability of the department to give this type of adequate counselling service in the past.

In addition to that, we're experiencing an ever-growing number of applications for broadening the tradesmen's qualifications in the apprenticeship training areas to other crafts and trades. So we anticipate growing demands on this department.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Could the Minister explain why office expenses under this vote have more than doubled when the overall vote itself has increased by a far lesser percentage?

HON. MR. KING: Well, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, there was a shortage of money in the last estimates. Consequently there was a higher amount in these estimates to compensate for the shortage last time.

Vote 127 approved.

Vote 128: labour relations branch, $140,072 — approved.

Vote 129: mediation services, $352,036 — approved.

Vote 130: motor vehicles and accessories, $22,000 — approved.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order of business. I anticipate pursuit of legislation on Monday. And then after that back to estimates. And then back to legislation. And back to estimates. And Tuesday we'll do some more work. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Private Members day? I think it would be valid if the Whips could come to some agreement on private Members…

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:21 p.m.