[ Page 431 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Two river policy. Mr. Smith — 431

Oil and natural gas resources. Mr. Wallace — 432

Acceptance of Paish report on Prince Rupert.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 432

Unification of police forces in Capital Regional District.

Mr. Curtis — 433

Increased charge to extended-care patients.

Mr. McClelland — 433

Vancouver sale of shares in company after bankruptcy.

Mr. Gardom — 434

Point of order

Amendment not printed in Votes and Proceedings.

Mr. Phillips — 434

Mr. Speaker — 435

Mr. Gardom — 435

Mr. Speaker — 435

Routine proceedings

Motions

Adjourned debate on Motion 2. Mr. Hall — 435

Agricultural Credit Act. (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 435

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act. (Bill 38). Ms. Sanford.

Introduction and first reading — 436

An Act to Amend the Real Estate Act. (Bill 29).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 436

Supplementary Municipal Assistance Act. (Bill 26). Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 436

Hon. Mr. Hall — 437

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 437

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act. (Bill 28).

Second reading. Mr. Curtis — 437

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 438

Labour Code of British Columbia Act. (Bill 11), Second reading.

Mr. Chabot — 438

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 441

Division on second reading adjournment — 443

Point of order

Admission to chamber when vote called. Mr. Richter — 444

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Act. (Bill 11). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 444

Division on second reading adjournment — 448

Mr. Dent — 448

Hon. Ms. Young — 453

Mr. Gabelmann — 455

Mr. Schroeder — 459

Ruling

Motions to adjourn debate. Mr. Speaker — 461

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1973.

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce to the House Dr. Peter Bullen, who is the Chairman of the Vancouver School Board and Chairman of the Board for the Vancouver City College, a distinguished citizen of the city in which I live and which partly I represent. Please join with me in welcoming Dr. Peter Bullen.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I draw the attention of the House to another distinguished visitor in the galleries today, His Worship Mayor Jim Quaife, the mayor of the City of Duncan.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from Burnaby North, students from Alpha Junior Secondary.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'm exceptionally pleased and honoured to see that in the House today there is additional Gardom blood, apart from the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and that is that of my cousin, the Reverend Cyril Venables, who graced us with prayers this afternoon. I would bid him a very good welcome to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I wondered why it was you were in for prayers today. (Laughter.)

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have today accepted with thanks for his services the resignation of the Rt. Hon. E. Davie Fulton as Chairman of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia. A very distinguished Canadian, and I thank him on behalf of all of us for all the services he has rendered to the people of this province.

We have appointed pro tem, leading to the time of a full-time chairman, Ron Bray, now of the commission, and some new blood in the persons of Allen Abraham Zysblat of the Faculty of Law at UBC; Peter Fraser, a lawyer of the City of Vancouver; and Paul D.K. Fraser, also a lawyer of the City of Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, further may I ask leave to file, now that copies are available for all Members, the report of the Task Force on Correctional Services and Facilities?

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

TWO-RIVER POLICY

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) in his capacity as a director of B.C. Hydro. In this morning's copy of the Vancouver Province newspaper Mr. Cass-Beggs, the Chairman of B.C. Hydro, is reported as stating, "That British Columbia only avoided a power shortage as in Washington and Oregon because it has a two-river policy." Was he indicating that the position of the government is now different from what it was when they were in opposition and so strongly opposed the two-river policy?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I would point out to the Hon. Member Beauchesne, p. 148, the one that deals with this — and this is becoming a habit — says: "A Member must not inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are true." Now I don't know whether the Hon. Minister wishes to answer this question, but it should not be framed in the way of a newspaper reference. I wish Members would try to avoid that.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. SMITH: It would seem to me that when a newspaper reports some other person, a third party, and that is the only reference we have at the time, is it not permissible to use that reference when we're questioning a Member?

MR. SPEAKER: Beauchesne says, "No." And the reason Beauchesne says that is because you have to take personal responsibility for something you lay out in this House as a fact. And you don't know it any more than we know it as to whether the newspaper is accurate, although we always assume newspapers are accurate. But nevertheless you have to take that responsibility.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, what you want to do is try again. (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: Now we're in agreement, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister indicate to the House the position with respect to the sale of power, from British Columbia to the States of Washington and Oregon, if they are in fact faced with this desperate

[ Page 432 ]

power shortage and require energy which may be surplus to our distribution system at the present time?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): There certainly are agreements now with the Bonneville administration, Mr. Speaker, that deal with surplus energy with respect to our requirements, and that's ongoing. That's applied essentially in situations different from the present one. I think that's really all I can say at this time.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to ask the Minister if he would indicate to the House how soon site 1 on the Peace River might be going ahead, since there is such a shortage of power anticipated in the future. Site 1 is there, it won't cause any ecological damage, it won't do anything, so how soon could we anticipate a start on that much-needed project?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm pleased that the Hon. Member is convinced that there'll be no ecological damage. Because our studies are not yet complete in that regard. But certainly the government is seriously looking at this stage at both site 1 on the Peace and the seven-mile site on the Ponderey near Trail, two of the major opportunities we face in the near future with respect to development.

OIL AND NATURAL GAS
RESOURCES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): In the light of rather similar problems which Alberta and B.C. seem to be having with the federal government in regard to vital natural resources of oil and natural gas, could I ask the Attorney General if there are any discussions or negotiations going on with the Government of Alberta? And, if there are not, to what degree is the Attorney General prepared to set up such a meeting, either in Alberta or in British Columbia, to exchange ideas on this rather vital subject?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there have of course been meetings between the Premier of this province and the Hon. Peter Lougheed which have discussed this matter in a general way. There have also been meetings at the expert level between our energy board officials and experts from Alberta.

But essentially our problems are rather different because the Alberta material, of course, flows to eastern Canada and becomes a Canadian problem. We, in our part, will be introducing legislation shortly in this House which will not be of Alberta paternity.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question on that. Is the Minister telling us then that he will not make any specific request to the National Energy Board to ask them to invoke regulation 11 (a) of the national energy Act to raise the price at the federal level? Is this a final decision by this government that we will go the provincial route of a provincial Crown agency?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as I stated the other day, the provincial action will be taken, but there is supplemental cooperative action that may be taken at the federal level and that has been discussed in a very general way with the Hon. Donald Macdonald.

ACCEPTANCE OF PAISH REPORT
ON PRINCE RUPERT DEVELOPMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A question to the Premier. May I ask him whether the recommendations of the Paish report, which he gave us earlier this week concerning the development at Prince Rupert, have been accepted by the government; whether the recommendations are now government policy and, specifically, in the light of Mr. Paish's attitude that Fairview and Ridley Island are not the sites that should be developed and that further sites should be looked for, may I ask him whether we can expect further studies to be commissioned to look into other sites — in particular, the Work Channel and Digby Island?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we accept Mr. Paish's report as we accept all reports. They don't necessarily become government policy. We have accepted the report and filed it. We did not receive Mr. Davis' comments until September 17. If Mr. Davis wishes to file his letter or gives me permission to file his letter, I would be pleased to do so.

Mr. Davis has responded in his letter to Paish's statements, and the matter stands there. We intend to discuss it further with Mr. Davis. I have no further statement on that until I have the opportunity of discussing it further with Mr. Davis.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, whether the provincial government is accepting, as its policy and as its position, the conclusions of the Paish report?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are accepting the advice of Mr. Paish but there are questions raised by the Paish report that we expect the federal government to respond to, and that is exactly what we are waiting for.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought, Hon. Members, that this matter had been disposed of in somewhat similar

[ Page 433 ]

terms yesterday and on previous occasions.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A supplementary question. In view of what was said in the House yesterday, I would like a clarification of the exact capital commitments to the province with relation to the Prince Rupert port facilities. The Premier said yesterday that there is no capital commitment with the federal government as to the location of a coal port. Yet when one looks at the agreement — the federal-provincial agreement on page 5 filed in this House — it states in part II(I) that "the Governments of British Columbia and Canada will share all facets of port development of a natural harbour at Prince Rupert."

Furthermore, while the Premier yesterday stopped at the word "location" in his reply, on page 6, subsection (3) of the agreement we find that the two governments agree that the comprehensive joint programme for port development in Prince Rupert, including the "location, size, type and timing, general cargo and bulk commodity terminal facilities will commence immediately."

HON. MR. BARRETT: General cargo and bulk loading are different from a coal port, Mr. Member. As I tried to explain, through you, Mr. Speaker, there has been a running dispute between the federal government and the Government of British Columbia as to the location of the coal port.

Now you may be the only Member of the House who is not aware that Mr. Davis and I have been having a disagreement. But if you are not aware of it, perhaps a glance through some of the Hansards of last session and some of the reports that have been tabled will show you the continuing friendly disagreement between myself and Mr. Davis as to the location of the coal bulk-loading port.

General cargo and container facilities are not coal loading. So I want to explain that helpfully to the Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, relative to the Paish report. I wonder if the Premier is aware of who leaked the report to the press and whether he is proposing any punitive action against the individual who released that report to the press.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm not aware of who leaked the report to the press. I find it unfortunate that the press is able to read the report before federal civil servants are, but that's not my responsibility; it is obviously the federal government's.

I am disappointed when I read in the paper that the poor, unfortunate federal civil servant wasn't even aware that the report had been sent to Mr. Davis. I am full of love and friendship towards the federal government. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier seems to distinguish between a bulk loading and a general cargo port. However, Howard Paish's report, as I read it, did not. I wonder whether or not there has been a decision arrived at for general cargo and whether or not the delay is only in the case of the coal port?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is an agreement in terms of general cargo. The exact location is a matter of discussion because of ecological matters. There is an agreement that general cargo will go out of Prince Rupert. But the coal port, specifically, is something that is separate and distinct from the agreement we have signed with the CNR. We will not make a decision on the coal report until we are satisfied that there will be no ecological damage as a result of the placement of that coal port.

UNIFICATION OF POLICE FORCES
IN CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT

MR. CURTIS: Yesterday, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) made a statement with respect to amalgamations and incorporations in the greater Victoria area. May I ask the Attorney General if he has given any consideration at all, or if he is giving consideration, to the unification of police forces within the greater Victoria Capital Regional District?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I have given no consideration to that. I'll take it as notice.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General. Has he had any discussions with any police chief or any chief magistrate in this connection in greater Victoria in the past few weeks?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not in the past few weeks.

INCREASED CHARGE
TO EXTENDED-CARE PATIENTS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is for the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and it has to do with a telegram sent to the Minister from the Multiple Sclerosis Society. I would like to ask the Minister if he has given assurances to that society that the proposed increase to $5.50 a day for extended-care patients will not be discriminatory and will not be in effect for multiple sclerosis patients.

And, if I could ask a supplementary now, Mr. Speaker: would the Minister also assure the House that consideration will be given in regard to other

[ Page 434 ]

illnesses which, while not terminal, do require long periods of hospital care? Will the Minister assure us that this "soak-the-sick" policy will not affect those kinds of patients?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): It is unfortunate that that Member hasn't been around here too long or he would know a great deal more about soaking the sick. That's one of the things that we are trying to get around at the very present time.

Now I have notified the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Mr. Speaker, through you to that Member; I have notified them that I would like to meet with them at the earliest opportunity. What we are doing at the present time is taking a look at whether or not this is the way to go.

This is the way that has been suggested to us by virtually every community in the Province of British Columbia. That's not to say that we have accepted it yet. We are meeting with all types of different people that are afflicted with chronic disease. But to suggest that this party is in that bailiwick with that old party over there, who did nothing but "soak the sick" over the years, is just too much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on the same subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you've had two already, I understand.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it's on the same subject. I'm entitled to another supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: You are not entitled unless the subject is one that should be pursued.

MR. McCLELLAND: I believe it is one that should be pursued.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, give your question and we will see.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister, when he was announcing this new policy, made reference to 10 per cent of the number of people who would not be on Mincome and who would be affected by this policy. I would like to ask if those figures have been revised or if there have been any figures, in deliberation, with regard to the percentage of people who will be affected if this policy is initiated, for intermediate care. Will it be significantly higher than 10 per cent?

HON. MR. COCKE: We are not into intermediate care at this point. We don't know what the numbers are exactly of people who are or are not on Mincome for reasons of being handicapped or for reasons of old age. What we said in the first place is that this will not be policy, and it isn't policy at this point. There has been an announcement that we are looking into the matter, and it won't be policy until such time as we are positive that nobody is going to be hurt economically around this issue.

VANCOUVER SALE OF SHARES
IN COMPANY AFTER BANKRUPTCY

MR. GARDOM: To the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Some days ago I drew to the attention of the Attorney General the very scandalous situation of shares of a public company being traded on the Vancouver Stock Exchange some 16 days after the company has been declared legally bankrupt, and the Attorney General indicated that he'd take the question as notice.

I wonder if he now has some information on the point as to whether or not the stock exchange is prepared to guarantee losses of any innocents. Also, is he prepared to inform the House of what preventive measures he has in mind to prevent such an occasion happening in the future.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Posthumous trading in shares is deplorable at any time. Therefore, discussions are going ahead between my Securities Branch and the officials of the Vancouver Stock Exchange as to some method whereby they can most conveniently be put in possession of knowledge of bankruptcies immediately.

MR. GARDOM: That's hardly an answer to the second part of the question, is it?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member realizes that he is repeating his question of the other day.

MR. PHILLIPS: A point of clarification at this time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it a point of procedure?

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of procedure, point of order. Looking at yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, I noticed that the very, very, very worthwhile amendment I brought in to Bill 9 has not been printed in Votes and Proceedings.

Now, I had given notice to the Clerks that I would bring that amendment in today, but the bill was called yesterday before the amendment had time to get on the order paper.

[ Page 435 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Wasn't it dealt with by the House and voted upon by the House?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, dealt with by the House but it is not printed in Votes and Proceedings, and normally amendments are printed.

MR. SPEAKER: The explanation is this, the amendment was not printed because there was not adequate notice of the amendment to be printed in the orders of the day.

The amendment was brought up by the Hon.

Member, I understand, in committee, and committee reports are not included in Votes and Proceedings unless they are requested by the committee to the House. And the only thing that was requested from the Committee of the Whole House yesterday was the recording of the division that took place in committee. Therefore, we would not have in the records of the Journals of the House anything from committee in the way of amendments and so on.

Those occur in orders of the day when adequate notice is given. Unfortunately that was a verbal amendment, I understand, from committee and therefore wouldn't be printed.

MR. PHILLIPS: I gave proper notice. It was printed and laid on the Clerks' desk. Then, in the future when an amendment is brought up in committee, in order to have it in Votes and Proceedings should we ask that it be printed?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, you would have to in a case such as that. It is something to alert yourself for — where you know it is not printed up in the orders of the day, you ask the chairman of the committee to have this recorded in Votes and Proceedings then we will get it there; but I cannot control that which happens in committee. That is up to the committee itself.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll do what I can to help on that matter, to set out a procedure that you can use.

MR. GARDOM: On the very point that you are mentioning, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of practice I think it would be most useful for the House, and certainly for the dissemination of public information, that when amendments to bills are made in committee the procedure that you suggested be followed automatically whereby we would always have a record of an amendment to a bill, because that is not possible under the existing procedure.

In the past session I can remember in quite a few statutes, particular the Land Act, there were two or three amendments which did not find themselves into the Journals of the House but only, of course, were recorded in Hansard. The point has been raised to me by various of the legal libraries in the Province of British Columbia. The proposal would be of great assistance to them and to the general public.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we have asked the legislative counsel, who keep records of what transpires in terms of changes in legislation, to keep a record of amendments and see that something is reported on those amendments so the public can gain the information immediately that there has been a change in a bill proposed and passed in this House, either in committee or in third reading.

Motions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on motion 2.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, the government is still receiving information by virtue of the debate already in the private Members' day last week. I was in touch with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), who wasn't present in the House on the occasion of that debate, and he assures me that the Treasury Board will be looking into the question of tax reform. The government isn't prepared to support this motion at this particular time, however, I think it still should be left for people in the House to look at, and I move adjournment of the debate again.

Motion approved.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, There is no indication that we are leaving motions. Sorry, no, it is quite all right. It is a message bill, I understand.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Lieutenant-Governor still has some authority around here.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural Credit Act.

Bill 44 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.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, are we introducing bills now?

[ Page 436 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MS. SANFORD: All right.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I may point out, no. A message bill can come in at any time when there is a break in any proceedings. We are still on motions and adjourned debate on motion.

MS. SANFORD: Was there a call for introduction of bills today? I didn't hear it.

MR. SPEAKER: Not as yet.

MS. SANFORD: Right. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It follows after motions, I believe.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to the introduction of bills.

Motion approved.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

Ms. Sanford moves introduction and first reading of Bill 38 intituled An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 38 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE REAL ESTATE ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill 29 intituled An Act to Amend the Real Estate Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 29 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.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLEMENTARY MUNICIPAL
ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The principle of this bill is to bring about a better balance for all the municipalities within the Province of British Columbia with respect to industrial assessments whenever and wherever they may be located. I think it is a generally known fact that at the present time inequities do exist and that because of locations either geographic or some other favourable reasons one municipality may be blessed with an abundance of industrial assessments while another, because of similar situations, will find themselves in a very unfavourable position with respect to assessments being available to them — even though these municipalities may be required, and most of the time are required, to provide the services for the people who work for the particular industries involved.

So the principle of this bill would be to strike a mean or a level, taking into consideration the total industrial assessment in the Province of British Columbia, and dividing that by the total per capita population within all the municipalities of the province. In that way you would arrive at an average industrial assessment within the Province of British Columbia.

We did some calculations and found that the average assessment on a per capita basis in the Province of British Columbia is presently $2,860. Now, we also found in looking this matter over that there are presently 98 municipalities in the Province of British Columbia whose average industrial assessment is somewhat below the $2,860 level, which is an average for all municipalities in the province.

We found that this happens most often in the smaller municipality. For instance, it certainly does not apply to the City of Vancouver or the City of Victoria because their industrial assessment is much higher on a per capita basis, and for that reason they would not be included.

By the same token, they do have other problems which are pertinent and peculiar to their circumstance — and I can name one, rapid transit or city transportation systems and so on — that other areas are not involved in.

The idea behind this would be to assess all of these municipalities. As I have said, in looking over the statistics that are available to us from the Assessment Equalization Act and from the assessment commission we find 98 municipalities in the Province

[ Page 437 ]

of British Columbia that would be affected. I would like to name a few of them that I picked at random: Nelson, Revelstoke, Chilliwack, Rossland, Armstrong, Fort Nelson, Merritt, Cumberland, Dawson Creek, Sidney, Fort St. John, McBride. These are all municipalities which have a lower industrial assessment base available to them than the $2,860 average.

Now, the bill provides that these municipalities would receive a per capita grant to bring them up to the provincial average. I'd like to take as an example the municipality of Fernie because I have the figures on it. The municipality of Fernie has available to it on a per capita basis at the present time, on the basis of a one mill assessment, $1.25. So there's a shortfall. The difference between the provincial average of $2.86 and $1.25 equals $1.71, and it is the intention of this particular bill that the shortfall would be made up out of the revenue of the province to that municipality at the rate of $1.61 times the population of 4,422 for a total grant of $7,150.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, on a point of order being made.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Point of order. I've been following the speaker closely and he just said that the shortfall should be made up by a grant from consolidated revenue. I think that offends standing order 67, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder if you'd rule on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I can see from studying Bill 26, sections 3 and 4, that first of all there's a duty cast upon the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance which would change their duties and increase the expenditure required by the Crown. Secondly, in any event, there's a requirement that the Minister of Finance

"shall in each year pay from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to any municipality an equalization grant which…shall be equal to the product of the population of the municipality multiplied by the difference between an amount based upon a one mill tax levy…as determined under subsection (1) of section 3."

Now, this is altering the revenues of the Crown, it's also altering the expenditures of the Crown and it's placing a different obligation upon the Crown than presently exists by law. In all those circumstances, a number of decisions following standing order 67 have held that this would be out of place in the hands of a private Member and must come in by message, as I've indicated earlier. In this circumstance I have no course open but to rule it out of order under our constitution.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't intend to challenge your ruling, but all I would like to say is that we feel that it's a very worthwhile idea and would certainly encourage the government to proceed along the lines that we've suggested.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. I try to allow Members, as far as possible, to explain their purpose so that the House will know it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, about three years ago in the City of Victoria the chief constable of the municipal police department initiated a plan which I believe was then unique in Canada, perhaps throughout North America, with respect to the engaging of law students in universities in British Columbia as temporary police officers or police cadets. The police cadet category was used particularly because the young men were not yet 21 years of age as is required in most police departments.

It has proven to be an extremely useful scheme, both for the students involved and for the permanent members of the police departments concerned, in order that they might have an opportunity to closely associate with quite young men who are going through the university system. It has also, I think, brought two age groupings together in a manner which has proven difficult, particularly where law enforcement is concerned.

As I said a few moments ago, the proposal was first tried by Chief Constable Gregory of the City of Victoria Police Department, and I believe it was in 1970. One year later, at the conclusion of the university year, the same scheme was introduced in the District of Saanich, and I have reason to believe, in view of publicity in a number of journals across Canada, that the proposal is being tried elsewhere in the country.

I realize that at any point, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) will rise.

This amendment to the Municipalities Aid Act would suggest to the government that by contributing relatively small amounts of dollars to these particular police departments where such a cadet programme using university students is introduced, they would endorse the campaign and would see, perhaps, that it has some of the benefits which I have just outlined. The dollars involved undoubtedly are very small, but I suggest that the concept, again introduced by a very well-known and respected chief constable in the British Columbia area, has much to recommend it.

[ Page 438 ]

HON. MR. HALL: …a dollar is a dollar. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty cents.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I am to take it from that remark about a dollar that there must be something to do with money in this bill. Bill 28 does require that the Lieutenant-Governor "may prescribe to the Minister of Finance how much he shall in each year pay from consolidated revenue.

It also follows from that that it would be out of order in the hands of a private Member to impose any obligation upon the Crown other than by message. Therefore it is out of order under standing order 67. I so rule.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker, the Labour Code of British Columbia Act.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): It's a good thing we have some amplifiers outside. To hear what's taking place, there appears to be a bit of anxiety on the part of the government to rush this through the House…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no.

MR. CHABOT:…before interested parties will have an opportunity of expressing their attitudes and opinions on this new direction and most critical piece of legislation to be introduced in the House during the current session.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's committee stage.

MR. CHABOT: In discussing the principle of the bill, there are many broad principles included in the bill, and there are many questions that come to mind relative to the legislation. I see that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is not in his seat. I had hoped that he would be in his seat to hear some of the questions that I might put to him relative to the functions and the administration of the new labour code of British Columbia.

We see in the labour code that the board shall publish general policies that are formulated. The question that comes to mind, of course, is: will the board also publish guidelines that clearly indicate what an appropriate bargaining unit is? I think it's very important that we know whether the board is going to define what an appropriate bargaining unit is.

We see in the bill that the board has the power to treat individuals, corporations, syndicates or associations as one employer. I'm wondering in the administration and in their decision on the treating of these various groups as one employer, whether they'll be establishing a precedent, such as has been established many times in courts, that will reflect future decisions by the board relative to the amalgamation of certain corporations, organizations and individuals which they consider to constitute one employer.

We see also some vague terminology in the bill called voting constituency. I hope they're not referring to my constituency, but rather about an employer when they're talking about voting constituency. It appears to be a very vague term and it appears that the administration of this voting constituency will be a nightmare.

Its application and the determination of what constitutes a constituency will be very difficult to administer, because within the voting constituency it takes 35 per cent of the workers signed up with a union in order to get a unit established.

Further on, we notice that the board has the power to decide whether that unit is appropriate or whether certain segments of that constituency are appropriate for a collective bargaining unit. It's going to be very difficult, in my opinion, for the board to determine whether a segment of the voting constituency represents 35 per cent of the members who have decided they want to become part of a union and part of a bargaining unit.

We see all through the Act, very clearly spelled out, the powers that are given to the board. But there is one very significant change in the Act relative to power, and that is in the matter of technological change. And those powers are conferred upon the Minister; the Minister has all the powers when it comes to the question of technological change.

We see that, because of a technological change it appears to me at least, the collective agreement is no longer in force because of the dispute of a technological change. It appears that there will be a proliferation of disruptions, a proliferation of lockouts, strikes and picketing, which I don't think is in the best interests of labour peace in the province.

We see new terminology in the legislation and that is an "ally" — an ally of a struck plant; ally of an employer; and the determination and the interpretation of who an ally is rests only with the board. The burden of proof as to whether an employer is an ally rests strictly with that employer.

I can foresee a substantial increase in picketing in the province because of this terminology. It will then be necessary for the employer to justify before the

[ Page 439 ]

board that he's not an ally of the struck employer. I can see a wide expansion of picketing and interruptions in various segments of our economy in the province. It will be necessary for the employer to appeal to the board to justify that he's not an ally in these situations.

In the bill we see some new terms which I haven't had sufficient time to examine. However, I have examined other labour codes across this country and, in the limited amount of time that I've had to examine these other labour codes, I haven't found the words "professional strikebreaker" being included in any of these other pieces of labour legislation. Certainly the matter of professional strikebreakers, which in my opinion has never reared its head in British Columbia, could be handled without the usage of this word as in the interpretation of the Act, I know that there has been established in one of the provinces of this country a professional strikebreaking force. Maybe the reason for the inclusion of this terminology in this particular Act is the experience of that particular province. It is very clearly an inflammatory term, really, which could best have been covered without the usage of the words "professional strikebreakers."

We see in the legislation that a matter which the Premier said was one of high principle with him has been covered. In the throne speech there was the question outlined by His Honour that the sanctity of individual religious beliefs would be protected. Subsequent to that, the Premier stated that it's always been a matter of high principle with him to protect individual religious beliefs.

When one looks at the section dealing with that in the legislation, one has to conclude that this statement is less than honest, because it does not cover the concern, it does not cover the apprehensions that people of strong religious beliefs have. I believe….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must say on a point of order that I don't think a statement made by any Member attributing to another Member a statement "less than honest" is really acceptable. I would ask the Hon. Member to avoid that expression.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it if it offends you, but really….

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a question of that. It offends against the rules. I'm never offended at anything.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, if it offends the rules I shall and I will withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. CHABOT: But one has to question the statement of the Premier that it is a matter of high principle with him. He has received a fair amount of correspondence from people who object, not only to belonging to a union but object to financial contributions to unions as well.

I cannot understand the reason why the government would not protect the rights of individuals who have strong religious convictions. There has been no hesitation in the Provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan to include, as the Minister would say, a comprehensive section dealing with this very matter.

Yet we see in British Columbia, despite the statements of the Premier, that they are unwilling to deal with a matter that is of concern to so few people in British Columbia.

Certainly you could have copied in this legislation many of the sections of the Labour Code of Manitoba. Certainly you could have copied the sections which they have dealing with individual religious beliefs. They have a good section that deals with the problem; so does the Province of Saskatchewan, another socialist province. But the difference in the socialist provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba is that they believe in protecting the individual's religious beliefs.

In British Columbia, we merely pay lip service to this matter. Yet when we look also to enlightened England, when we look at their industrial relations Act of 1971, they have a section that clearly spells out and clearly resolves the concern of those people, those few people basically who would be affected in British Columbia.

If you will bear with me for just one moment, Mr. Speaker, it's a very short section and I'll read it to you. I would hope that the government would reconsider that part of the labour code. If they don't like what they see in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, why don't they go to England and institute the following section?

"Any worker who conscientiously objects both to joining a registered trade union and to contributing to its fund, under the terms of an agency shop agreement, may offer to pay an equivalent contribution to a charity. If there is a dispute with the union as to whether the worker's conscientious objection is genuine, which charity should receive the worker's contribution, the amount that should be paid, the dispute may be referred to an industrial tribunal whose decision is final."

What's wrong with inclusion of a section of this nature? I receive numerous letters from individuals who are concerned about participating or belonging — and when I say "participating" I am talking about participating in a financial way — towards a trade union. And in each and every case they haven't only

[ Page 440 ]

stated that they are opposed to belonging to unions, but they have stated that they are opposed to contributing financially to a union. All they ask is that the dollars be redirected to a charity, and not necessarily even a charity — they are willing, I am sure, to make a contribution to help sustain the costs of the administration of the new labour code of British Columbia. They are willing to direct their dollars there. It doesn't necessarily have to be to a charity, but their concern is the contribution to a union. I hope that this government will bring in an amendment to this section so that they can have enlightened legislation such as there is in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Now, the legislation certainly has broad ramifications, as I said yesterday. I believe it is a genuine attempt on the part of the government to improve the labour climate in our province. There are many of the sections that can be best discussed in the committee stage, where we can have a full and wide opportunity to establish the intent of the government relative to the implementation of various sections. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve any further comments for the committee stage of this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss the principles involved in this pretty lengthy and complicated bit of legislation, may I first say that our party intends to support the legislation at this reading. We feel that the climate that we have had of labour unrest in the province has been a tremendous disadvantage to the Province of British Columbia. We feel that the Minister has acted correctly in attempting to rectify many of the problems that have occurred in past years.

In addition, I would like to compliment him on the legislation that he has brought forward. I have compared it with the Ontario Act, upon which it is modeled, and in the areas which are similar, I think in many cases the Minister has managed to find wording superior to that of the Ontario Act. Now I realize, of course, that it is not his personal efforts in this area of improving the grammar, and sometimes tidying the legislation up, but he has found people to do this for him, and I congratulate him on it. It is a fine bit of work, in terms of a very detailed bit of work, and in principle we find it possible to support it.

Having said that, of course, I will now come to buts, howevers and whereases. We do find that there are a number of things in the legislation which cause a good deal of concern.

First of all, and this will be discussed much more in the committee stage, is the apparent withdrawal of appeal to the courts. I know the Minister has talked about this in his introduction to the bill, and I realize that he has put forward comments on this. More will be said by us at the committee stage on this aspect of the bill, and more will be said by other speakers of our party on this particular proposal.

The second point I would like to mention at this time, which has been mentioned before and which we will mention again, is the phoniness of the conscience clause contained in this legislation. If a man does not wish to belong to an association he generally objects equally strongly to contributing money to its support. The provisions which allow for an equivalent amount of money to be turned over to a charity are, we feel, good ones and we would urge that at the committee stage an amendment to this effect be put in by the government.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most important aspect as we see it, of course, is the opportunity for the labour court or the labour board — whatever we want to call it — to have a person on the spot with great dispatch to attempt to settle any differences or difficulties that arise. We think that in this instance by using such a person it may be possible to get the two parties together, and it may be possible through more flexibility and certainly more speed to get some sort of settlement, although we expect to hear a great deal more from the Minister on this in the committee stage.

The bill which the Minister has brought in has a number of aspects which we find to be questionable, but most are in matters of detail, or matters clause-by-clause, and we will go into it later. But the point that I want to comment upon most at this time is that perhaps what is needed in British Columbia, in addition to new legislation, is a new climate of labour relations. The Minister himself has made this perfectly clear and the Premier has as well. Other Members have talked about it. You can work with bad legislation; it's done in many parts of the world and yet things still work adequately. And you can have the best legislation in the world, but as the Minister pointed out the other day unless both sides are willing to make it work it won't work. That probably is the area where we feel the handling of this bill has been most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to suggest that the B.C. Federation of Labour is the only organization that should be thought of — far from it. But the fact is that the B.C. Federation of Labour and other labour organizations have not instantly warmed to this bit of legislation. They have real questions which they are raising, they have concerns, and they want to consider it. Next week in this city — next Tuesday, I believe — right after the long weekend the B.C. Federation of Labour are going to have a meeting here to put forward their amendments, put forward their changes and put forward their proposals, after having considered the bill.

Now, what I find to be totally incomprehensible is why it's necessary to try and jump the gun on all these organizations, some of which — and I'm

[ Page 441 ]

speaking specifically of the Federation — have stated that this legislation may well create more labour trouble than we have had in the past. Now, in the abstract, looking at the words of the bill, the Minister and I can say, "Gee, it's a better bit of legislation," but if the B.C. Federation of Labour, a fairly important body in the labour field of British Columbia, says that they think it's worse than previously, what in heaven's name is the enormous need for speed to get this wretched thing rammed through this Legislature?

I have been quoted, and I have a few quotations around here, as saying that we generally favour the bill, and I've mentioned the numbers of the areas of concern which we are going to discuss in the committee stage. But what beats me completely, unless it is simply that lingering, festering bad blood between the premier and the Federation of Labour, which goes back some way, is why this legislation has to be introduced in an inflammatory way. Why is it, for example, that I have had no opportunity as the leader of an opposition party, and I know this to be true for the Social Credit as well, of sending copies of the bill out to people in the labour field, as well as in the management field, and asking them for their views — this through correspondence? It's not just a question of not receiving a reply; in some cases they haven't even received our initial letter asking for this information. Now what possessed the government, what possessed the Ministers of the Crown, in this instance…?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's of critical importance. We waited over a year for this legislation.

MR. CHABOT: He's a railroader.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): That sounded parliamentary. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He's a highballer too, it's pretty obvious. What possessed him to bring in legislation in this way, to push it forward in the Legislature as fast as possible and to insist that it be discussed by this Legislature in principle before we have had an opportunity of consulting with the many people in society who are, of course, individually affected because they are either one party or the other and, just as important, the public itself — the third group always ignored in labour management disputes but who normally get it in the neck and bear the brunt of the problems concerned?

Why has it not been possible for this debate to be delayed? Is it simply because the Premier wishes to settle a few old scores with the federation, wishes to show who's boss in the province? Or psychologically, perhaps, he needs building up. I don't know. But why is it that he's done it this way? He is creating the very problem which defeated the previous legislation which was brought into this Legislature with such high hopes — at least high hopes by the government of the day when they brought it in.

Now we know that that legislation theoretically could have worked and the previous speaker has indicated so. He said it was bad blood. He said that it was not bad legislation; it's just that people wouldn't let it work.

Now we know that to be the case and we know this legislation essentially is another attempt. There's nothing in this, as the Minister himself admitted when he brought it in. He said, "Chief, we're going to have to amend it later on; it's not the final answer; it's just something we're going to be working with until we fix it up and improve it."

Okay, fine, it is to a degree draft legislation which you brought in. You want to get it in and then you're going to change it later on. Fair enough. And I've given the Minister credit for bringing in detailed legislation which made a great deal more sense than that of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), which I was complaining about yesterday.

But in heaven's name, why is it necessary to start your legislation off on the wrong foot? Why is it necessary to bring it in at this time, to have this bit of legislation, so important to the future of British Columbia, so important to every one of us, be they labour, management or the general public at large, even the small pensioner who of course can be affected by a strike as much as anyone, why is it necessary for all these people to have their hopes for a better labour climate in British Columbia jeopardized by incompetence in the handling of this bill? I don't know.

I raise this. I suggest to you that the reason is simply because of a vendetta which has been built up between certain people in the Federation of Labour and now certain people in the government, in particular the Premier. This sort of childishness, when you're dealing with labour relations in the Province of British Columbia, is probably the major area of concern, certainly of this legislative session and quite possibly of this Legislature's whole life of three or four years, whatever it turns out to be. Why was it necessary to start off so badly?

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to pursue this indefinitely, but it seems to me that what we've seen is that this very first step is a wrong step, a step in the wrong direction in the handling of this bit of legislation.

Now I know that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is not the House Leader and I appreciate the fact that he undoubtedly is not responsible for forcing this into the House at this stage or indeed

[ Page 442 ]

previously. I can give credit to the Minister. He wanted to get his initial statement on record in the Legislature and he did that a short time ago. Then his debate was adjourned by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and it was a sensible proposal for the Minister to speak first and then to have the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've been listening for quite some time with some concern. We're supposed to be debating the principle of the bill and not the expediency or otherwise of how a bill is put in or whether it was advisable to put it in or not. The subject of the bill has to be the subject of discussion. It follows that it must be on the principle of the bill that the debate takes place. I would urge, after that long preliminary by the Hon. Member, that we now deal with the principle of the bill itself.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I respect your views. I'm simply talking about the statement of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and I quote from the Daily Colonist of Wednesday, October 3: "The Federation's statement called for King to introduce amendments" — and they go on to say — "the potentially disastrous implications" of this legislation.

Now what I'm trying to suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that the manner of handling of this legislation is somewhat important. Indeed, I think it's very integral to the whole concept of bringing forward labour legislation. The approach taken has been such that I myself don't believe that we are doing our very best to encourage labour peace in British Columbia and get this legislation accepted, any more than the previous legislation was accepted.

I don't believe it's possible for us to have this type of legislation accepted by the rank and file of union membership, by the employers' associations, by large numbers of small employers who are pretty busy people. They want to look at legislation that obviously may be critical to them; these people want to have an opportunity of looking at this thing.

MR. SPEAKER: The proper place to debate that would be on a motion to adjourn the debate or some such place that deals with the order of business. Here we're concerned with the principle of the bill itself. I would ask the Hon. Member somehow to come around to that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate your comments. Therefore, I will put forward in my name now a motion to adjourn this debate for the reasons that I've stated and what I'll continue to discuss, if permitted to talk about the motion, for a moment or two. I will put forward a formal motion to adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has made a motion that the debate on Bill 11 be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will be doing that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You are doing that now?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if I'm given the opportunity to explain the reasoning for my motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought you had done that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps it's crystal clear to you, Mr. Speaker, but your genius is probably greater than most of us in the room. I don't know whether anybody has understood my point.

If I might just restate this thing and then put the motion on the floor, my point is this: this legislation, if it's to be effective, if it's to change the climate of labour unrest in British Columbia, the province which has the worst record by far of any in Canada, it has to be acceptable to both sides. The manner of proceeding in this debate, the manner of introducing this legislation has not, in my mind, been the best process that could have been followed to have this legislation properly accepted.

My motion therefore would be to adjourn, Mr. Speaker, and allow the government to wait until such time as the Federation has had its meeting, until such time as the employers' council and other employer groups have had their meetings to discuss the legislation; to delay this until such time as they've had an opportunity to inform us, face-to-face, which they're entitled to do as we are their legislators and representatives.

This has not yet happened. We are debating a bill in principle before we've had a chance for the public to make their views known. Therefore I move adjournment, Mr. Speaker, of this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is whether the debate on second reading of Bill 11 shall be adjourned to the next sitting of the House. All those who support the motion and vote "yea," please stand.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: He tried to sneak in while I was out of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, be seated. All those

[ Page 443 ]

who oppose the motion and vote "nay," please stand.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, be seated.

HON. MR. HALL: If you weren't ready to speak, why did you stand up?

CLERK: Voted "yea": Chabot, Richter, Smith, Fraser, Phillips, McClelland, Morrison, Schroeder, Bennett, Anderson, Williams, Gardom, Wallace, Curtis. Fourteen.

Voted "nay": Hall, Macdonald, Barrett, Dailly, Nimsick, Stupich, Hartley, Calder, Nunweiler, Brown, Sanford, D'Arcy, Cummings, Dent, Levi, Lorimer, Williams, Cocke, King, Young, Radford, Lauk, Nicolson …

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Mr. Clerk, I don't think the Hon. Minister Without Portfolio stood.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): I was informed that I had been paired after I got in the House. I would like a negative vote recorded but I was not clear on this point. Was I paired or was I supposed to be out of the House?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I think that was an error, not mine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A rule of our House is that if a Member comes in, the Whip corrects the statement of the Clerks of the House and no Member can be seated on the affirmative or negative vote both. You must vote; you cannot abstain.

I take it that the Hon. Member is asking that his vote be recorded as opposed to the motion. Is that correct?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

MR. CHABOT: The pairing arrangements. We are destroying the whole concept of pair arranging. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: There is no such rule in the House. By a courtesy only is extended the right for absent Members to have pairs in the House. There is one rule in the House that must be observed and that is that a Member must vote when he is seated in the House. I have asked what his vote would be. I can conduct the vote over again so that it would be ascertained. Do you wish me to conduct the vote over again?

MR. CHABOT: Are you suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that it is not possible for a Member of one party to pair with a Member of another party? Is that what you are suggesting?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't suggest things; I state things.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, you don't always state things.

MR. SPEAKER: I state, as a rule of this House that must be observed, that a Member sitting in this House must vote either for or against any proposition.

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether there was an arrangement between the Member….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated so we may conduct a vote.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 35

PAIRED

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Recorded, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

[ Page 444 ]

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It was my early understanding when I first came into this House that when a vote was called for recording, no one left the chamber or entered it.

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct. Did someone leave the chamber?

MR. RICHTER: We were standing on this side of the House when the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) came in the door.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Before the vote was called, he was in his seat; before I called for the "yea" votes he was in his seat. I saw him there but I was puzzled at the fact that his name had been mentioned in pairs. But it is not my duty to draw that to the attention of the Whips.

MR. CHABOT: Don't pair with the socialists; you can't trust them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This unquestionably has to be one of the most important bills which this House has debated in a long time. Let me make it very clear early in my remarks that the Conservative Party strongly supports the concept of trade unionism. We believe that the trade union movement has made a contribution to society and to an improved standard of living.

But the question which faces society is the balance of power between management and labour; the balance of power and the techniques which are to be used when that balance of power is disturbed or when disputes arise.

I'd like to say that this party will want to offer a temperate approach, as the Minister suggested. This is no time for partisan politics; it is a very complex issue of vital importance to the whole of the province. I think the government has made a sincere attempt to grapple with some of the problems and we will try, as a party, to be as positive as we can be in this great goal of solving the problem of labour unrest and dispute.

The bill has some considerable merit. There are some points which we think are very good. There are some points we think are very bad and there are some points we are not sure about, I feel that if both sides clearly recognize at the outset the sincere attempt that the government has made and they are prepared at least to give the board a fair and frank and honest opportunity to fulfill its intended role, then there is hope for a fruitful and enlightened era in labour relations in this province.

On the other hand, if either side flies off in some kind of tantrum over either a potential or actual shortcoming of the legislation without appreciating the overall potential for good in the bill, then an opportunity for progress in labour relations will be lost and many serious disruptions in the economy of the province will continue to occur. It is from that basic standpoint that the Conservative Party hopes to offer constructive criticism.

We listened with interest to the Minister's remarks yesterday. While we see the philosophy behind the dramatic removal of the courts entirely from the scene, we have to raise the strongest possible objection to the bill on this one point. I will try to explain myself clearly.

The delegation of extensive power to the new board, without the right of appeal, inevitably places the complete and total onus for success of the new legislation on the chairman and members of the board. The obvious intent, as the Minister said, was to take the courts out of the whole picture and put the total responsibility onto the new Labour Relations Board. Since that is the government's concept, then one can perhaps understand why they have given the board so much power.

I recognize, Mr. Minister, that you have given the board no power to impose sanctions, and I respect that. But just because the board cannot impose penalties does not mean that one or the other party before the board might suffer considerable harm of economic, social or various other ways without being actually fined or imprisoned.

In that situation there is absolutely no mechanism whereby the individual can seek to appeal the decision of the board — as far as I can determine in researching this matter. I might say I'll have a little more to say about the haste with which the bill is being debated….

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's committee stage, so there's a long time yet.

MR. WALLACE: That's true, Mr. Premier. But I'm just going to try to touch on two very basic points and we'll cover all the detail in committee.

The implication seems to be that the courts were either disinterested or ineffectual in previous situations. I understand that at one time the courts did not well understand labour disputes, and this is a point the Minister made — there was at one time a blizzard of injunctions. But I think the record shows that in recent years that has diminished very considerably. The court, indeed, has a wider awareness of the essence of these disputes.

To get back to the point of the power which is given to the board, and I have to go into some detail in this because this is the one point on which if we cannot have amendments — and we will seek to bring in amendments — then this party would have to

[ Page 445 ]

oppose Bill 11 unless we can be assured that the very central point which I hope to make is remedied. Because the board not only has exclusive jurisdiction, it has the power to determine the extent of its jurisdiction and its ability to interpret points of law.

Any other judicial body, or quasi-judicial body, or any court in the land, whether it has powers to sanction or not, does not have that power without at the same time allowing the party before the court some avenue of appeal. It's just that simple.

There is no way that this party can accept the power given to the Labour Relations Board unless the party or parties before the board have some mechanism of appeal.

It really disturbs me that a government which professes to be very concerned about the democratic process, the natural process of justice and defence of the individual, should bring in a bill of this nature and give this kind of power, this absolute power. I'm sure that with all the goodwill in the world, the Members of the board will try to use that power wisely, but, Mr. Speaker, the history of mankind is that we're all human and we all make mistakes.

The implication in this bill is that the Labour Relations Board will make no mistakes and therefore there will be no need of an appeal. Now this is just so unacceptable and unreasonable that I feel sure the government will reconsider and build into the bill, as we now have it, some mechanism by which a person who considers himself aggrieved can appeal the decision of the board. Because not only can they not appeal the decision, but there is no appeal mechanism if by chance the board has misinterpreted the law, misinterpreted their terms of reference.

Of course, their terms of reference are so absolute, and they have such absolute power that it's very difficult to see if there's anything they cannot do. It seems as though they have such extensive powers that it's very difficult to imagine how one could appeal successfully even if the appeal mechanism were there.

The discretion which is allowed to the board, I think, is far in excess of what is reasonable. I would question whether in fact there is any other board of this nature in existence that has this power and also denies the interested parties the right of appeal.

I think, as I've said already, that our whole system of justice is based on the fact that even judges are human and fallible. They're highly trained; they're impartial; they're well intentioned and well motivated, but the highest judge in the land can make a mistake or he can misinterpret the law or misapply the law. It's such a fundamental concept, in my understanding at least, of the democratic system of government and the process of natural justice that the party shall always have a chance to appeal the decision made in a court.

Surely this is, although the Minister has tried to say this is not, a labour court. The fact that it's been given so much power and has legal representation on the board, and that the chairman is a renowned and highly skilled lawyer, proves beyond all doubt that it is indeed a labour court. I think that as such, it should be viewed in the same light as any other court which hands down judgments. Just to say that because this particular court cannot hand down penalties, I think, overlooks a tremendous amount of other harm which the court by mistakes, human mistakes, can make and in making such mistakes can do an individual or a union or an employer a tremendous amount of harm. And such a party has no right of appeal.

In fact, it would be my impression from talking with members of the legal profession that this bill is unconstitutional and likely very soon after it is passed there will be a dispute in which the constitutionality of the bill will in all likelihood be challenged. I hope it is because I, just personally, in no way could support this bill unless we have an amendment which brings in the right of appeal.

As the premier interjected a minute ago, we can talk at great length in committee on many of the sections, and I'll just quickly talk on one or two general points.

The composition of the board: again I think even finding the very best people for the job that you can…. I'm a little surprised that at least eight of the board are already tagged with one or another realm of experience which in the public mind would identify them clearly either with labour or with management. It's my feeling — personal opinion — that we should have gone the whole way and appointed four or five judges trained in labour and regard them all as impartial people with experience in the total field of labour and management. But the only person who is really totally and clearly not tagged with a labour or a management label is the chairman, and he's an academic. I'm not totally convinced that the academic kind of person is the best man to handle this, but I am very willing to admit that this is an innovation by the government which we would be interested to watch and support the concept.

Let me make it plain, Mr. Speaker, I'm not reflecting on the personalities concerned. I am just saying that the set-up on the board clearly distinguishes that there are four and four of the eight Members, and the chairman is the only one who has no clear previous connection with either side of the labour-management situation. The word "court" of course implies neutrality and objectivity, and I have to say that because of the way it is composed I think that that concept is in some doubt at this point.

The tremendous power also given to the board helps the board to decide on the interpretation of the definition, There are some interesting new phrases such as "professional strike breaker" and "ally" that are included in the bill which we will discuss in some

[ Page 446 ]

detail later. Nevertheless, just to take one quick simple example: supervisory personnel have always been in a position where they continue work during a strike. If you read the bill carefully, one could easily assume that supervisory personnel…again, in their wisdom and judgment, this absolutely powerful board could decide that supervisory personnel are strike breakers. The premier shakes his head, and maybe so.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not professional strike breakers.

MR. WALLACE: But the fact is, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in the bill.

MR. WALLACE: The point I'm trying to make in general terms, Mr. Speaker — and I didn't want to get off onto specifics — was just to say that the fact is that the power to decide who is a strike breaker rests completely and totally with this board. Now, it may be the premier's impression, and certainly not his intention that supervisory personnel will be strike breakers, but how do we make out if the board decides this?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's defined in the bill.

MR. WALLACE: It is defined. But it doesn't exclude supervisory personnel.

The whole question of the power of the board is to interpret, make it so. To the point I made earlier in my remarks, and probably I didn't make it clear, was that the board has so much power it has the power to decide the extent of its own jurisdiction which includes its extent to interpret the definitions for itself. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I don't really think that it's safe enough that the Minister or the Premier have that interpretation. It's a question of two things. The board has been given the power to decide everything, including the interpretation of the definitions. And again, there's no right of appeal and I just took that quick example in passing. The question of ally, the word "ally" concerns me a little bit also.

I am trying to put forward these points so that we will all have a thorough look at this bill in trying to ensure that the board will not make that kind of mistake which will create additional problems which don't exist at the present time. At least when B.C. Telephone goes on strike the status of the supervisory personnel is clearly defined. I'm just saying that under this new bill it's susceptible to other interpretations, and that interpretation made by the board has no avenue of appeal.

Section 33, I think, certainly has to be the most crucial section of the total bill. It says "to determine the extent of its jurisdiction" and "to determine any fact or question of law necessary to establish its jurisdiction." That is a complete and total right to the board to define its function and to feel free and to be free to interpret any question of law in determining its jurisdiction.

I don't think, really, that there is any other body in the land, a court or otherwise, that has that kind of power. As I said earlier, just because they do not have the power to put somebody in jail or fine them, all this other power has some tremendous ramifications, and I am sure the Minister will admit this.

Another point the Minister mentioned along the same lines was that he anticipates that the labour board would give reasons for its decisions in writing. Now, Mr. Speaker, surely to goodness there should be no other suggestion, if we are dealing with matters of this importance. Once again, when a court in the land, an official court or a judge, hands down his decision, it is just a matter of natural justice that he gives his reasons for the decision.

You are shaking your head. Well, this is where we must differ. The Minister shakes his head and I feel that…I stand corrected, perhaps, but it was always my understanding that when a judge makes the important step of deciding on somebody's future or fate, whether it is civil or criminal, he at least gives the reasons. And in a court of this magnitude, where the ramifications are so far….

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Of course he does.

MR. WALLACE: Well, maybe, Mr. Speaker, I can take another tack. I don't really feel that whether I am right or wrong about the judges or the courts of the land is the point. My point is that this is such a vital function that this Labour Relations Board is carrying out. It is given total power and there is no right of appeal. Surely to goodness when you get a decision from the board it should be in writing and the reasons should be clearly stated. I can't think of anything more straightforward than that.

Anyway, I am speaking longer than I had intended. The fact of the matter is that there is one other particular section which — I think it is section 70 — I feel also must leave a person of objective mind puzzled. It reads something to the effect that where we are talking about representation votes, the statement is made that where the board considers that a representative vote would not accurately represent the feelings of the numbers, the board can decide whether to certify or not certify. I find it, Mr. Speaker, just a staggering thought that here we have the board, in effect, telling the workers what is good for them and what is not good for them. I thought that was the last thing that this government was planning to do.

Now again the Minister shakes his head and we can

[ Page 447 ]

go into it in detail in committee, but…oh, no, it is section 43. A correction, Mr. Speaker: section 43, and I'll quote: "Where the vote is unlikely to disclose the true wishes of the employees, the board may certify or refuse to certify without directing that a vote be taken."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If there is intimidation you can't have a free vote.

MR. WALLACE: But there again, Mr. Attorney General…in other words, you are saying that votes really don't mean anything and that the Labour Relations Board is so anointed and so all-holy and all-understanding that they know better than the employees they are supposed to be helping.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In that narrow case of intimidation….

MR. WALLACE: Oh, one shouldn't draw up views based on the narrow exceptions, Mr. Attorney General. I think that that's a pretty far-reaching premise you're making that because sometimes this may appear to be the case, you would give the board this power to disregard a vote, or to tell the workers that the vote did not really say what it appeared to say.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, as I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I am only interested in trying to bring these points forward.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: For one year? I don't really care whether it is for one day. I think that it is one man, one vote. If there is some reason to suspect, as the Attorney General has suggested, that the vote is rigged or that it is inaccurate, there has to be some other mechanism than just having the power given to the board, in their wisdom or otherwise, to decide what is good for the workers. I would suspect that this is the kind of issue about which the B.C. Federation of Labour is probably considerably unhappy, and should have more opportunity to talk about it.

The last point I should probably try to make is also the very surprising point — or, at least, what seems to me to be a contradiction of government policy in regard to the first collective agreement. The Minister and I have talked personally at great length about the Sandringham strike, and I am aware of some of the difficulties. But it seems to me that the government has always said that it is opposed to compulsory arbitration; yet the power which is given to the board to impose the terms of a collective agreement is, in effect, a form of compulsory arbitration. No question about it.

I haven't got the section word for word in front of me; we'll go into it in committee reading. But the fact is that the bill imposes a form of compulsory arbitration where collective bargaining has failed in the case of a first agreement. I think I would like to hear more debate about this. And that relates, with respect, Mr. Speaker, to so many of the other points. I sat up till 3:30 on Tuesday morning; I went to bed at 2:30 this morning, reading this bill. It's just a fantastic bill in complexity, in detail. It has 153 sections, and I have the additional problem that I have no legal training.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, it is a bit of a handicap trying to explain exactly what some of the language means. But anyway, I certainly just have to make the point that I think we are entitled to more time to study the bill. I think that a bill of this complexity and the public reaction which has been provoked, I think, should make us respect the system.

I appeal to the Premier, seriously and without any partisan political idea of making political yards. I'm just saying to the Premier that I feel, with the holiday weekend coming up and the statements that have been made publicly and the obviously intense feeling of many people, particularly in the labour movement, that we really should adjourn the discussion at the moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: We have only got — tomorrow is Friday morning — three hours; we have a long weekend. We are not short of time, Mr. Premier. There is really no limit. I really feel that everyone would like to have more time to know more about this before we get to committee stage.

MR. WALLACE: With that, I would move, Mr. Speaker, that we adjourn this debate to the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): The point of order is that there must be intervening proceeding before the same motion for adjournment can be put.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is in order. In any event I am not going to stand in his way. The motion before the House is that this debate

[ Page 448 ]

be adjourned to the next sitting of the House. Is that correct?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, speaking to the motion to adjourn….

MR. SPEAKER: There is no debate on motions to adjourn under our rules. It is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, while we are waiting I think I should draw your attention to standing order 16, which deals with divisions. It makes it clear to Hon. Members that until the question is actually called after waiting for all Members to appear, up to the moment the Speaker calls and states the question and asks the Members to stand, Members are entitled to come in the House. At that moment the Sergeant-at-Arms has instructions that no Member is permitted into the chamber at the time the Speaker is starting to state the question. Nor may you leave until the division is recorded if a division is called for.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Without raising a point of order at this time, it might be useful if the effect of standing order 34 was canvassed in relation to the motion that we are now considering. Possibly the Speaker could consider that matter and give a ruling at a later time.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I can say right now that we would not be able to end this debate by adjournment at 5:55 p.m. unless there was a right of some Member on his feet at that time to move the adjournment of the debate. Therefore I take it that any Member can move adjournment of the debate at any stage in the proceedings. If he loses, of course, he exhausts his right to speak. So there is a penalty involved in moving the adjournment to debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: We might lose the Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Not until the next election.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 36

AN HON. MEMBER: Record the division.

MR. DENT: Mr. Speaker, after listening to two or three Members from the other side of the House commenting on this bill, and since we are under second reading to debate the principle of the bill, and since it seems from their comments that I could not learn what the principle of the bill is by listening to them, I have decided just to restart by reading just a few comments or a few sentences first that I think would delineate the principle of the bill, and then I will address my comments to the principle of the bill.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

The Labour Code of British Columbia Act seeks first of all to repeal three existing pieces of legislation — the Trade-unions Act, the Labour Relations Act and the Mediation Services Act — and establishes a new code of labour relations for British Columbia. The first salient point of the principle of the bill is that it is a new code of labour relations for British Columbia.

Then it goes on to comment: the philosophy of the new legislation emphasizes preventatives rather than punitive action; the code looks to solutions rather than sanctions or punishments; it has expanded collective rights but protected individual rights; it endorses free collective bargaining but legislates in the public interest.

The most profound change of the labour code is a greatly-reformed Labour Relations Board — and we could add the word, greatly-reformed and strengthened Labour Relations Board. The changed board will have comprehensive powers to deal with the problems of industrial relations, including the laws of strikes and picketing. The jurisdiction of courts to give injunctions in labour disputes is removed.

To assist the Labour Relations Board in achieving industrial harmony, a new function has been created in the person of a special officer. He will become an instant arbitrator-trouble shooter with power to deal

[ Page 449 ]

with the root causes of labour disputes rather than their symptoms.

The labour code strikes a balance between the economic powers of labour and management by restricting the right to picket but expanding the right to communicate information by other means.

These words delineate, in a sense, the principle of Bill 11. I would just like to make a few comments about how we can assess the principle of this bill. After all, this bill is going to affect every single person in the Province of British Columbia. It may even be pathfinding legislation on the North American continent or even on a worldwide basis in some respects. Therefore, it's important that we make an assessment of it based on some higher, broader principle, and that's what I will attempt to do first of all.

I was in the ministry in the Anglican Church for a number of years. In training for the ministry, we spent four years at university in the Anglican college studying theology. My hon. friend who is on the government side but on the other side of the House (Mr. Rolston) and who is in the United Church probably took lectures from the same people that I did. The Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) undoubtedly dipped into this soft subject as well: the general subject of moral theology.

If a person elects to be an atheist, that's fine, I don't mind, it's a free country. They have a basis of making judgments too. It's based upon what you might call the highest human morality they can devise or that they can construct in their own minds. It's this kind of basic thinking that we have to do around the principle of this bill in order to make some kind of judgment about it.

My thinking and my studies led me to develop the following philosophy. Every human being has, in my judgment, a basic moral responsibility to every other human being, present and future — in the past to some extent, too, inasmuch as we honour people in the past. But mainly in the present and in the future.

This means that we have to have a worldwide view of man. It means that we have to have a future view of man. We have to consider the effect now all over, and we have to consider the effect in time into the future. That's the first requirement.

The second one is that it is the responsibility of man, according to my understanding of moral theology, that every person must have a creative, positive and constructive view towards every other person. In other words, they must seek their highest good.

These are common sense sort of things you might say; they're basic things; we don't need to mention them. But I think it's important that we mention them, that we understand them and the implications of them. I just want to repeat them again. We must be concerned about all men for all time and we have to seek their highest good.

This is not an option in the sense that once I do this, I have this responsibility; before I become a Christian or before I become religiously accepted and then I have a different view afterwards, maybe only towards my fellow believers. I'm sorry the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) is out because I feel that this is one of the errors of the previous government's thinking, or at least some of the Members' of the previous government thinking; that there are two standards, one for the saved and one for the unsaved, so to speak. One for the unconverted and one for the converted.

There is one standard for all men, saved and unsaved, converted and unconverted.

MR. CHABOT: What's your attitude on the conscience clause?

MR. DENT: I'm coming to the conscience clause. It applies to everyone. No one can opt out on the grounds that they are now saved and therefore this doesn't apply to them in quite the same way, or that they are an atheist and therefore it doesn't apply to them, or for some other reason. Everyone has the same moral obligation. I repeat them again: to all men, for all time. That means all races, everyone.

As a Christian socialist, therefore, I'm committed ideally to the kind of an economy and the kind of a society where people will voluntarily work for the benefit of others and for all others. I presume that this will be the case in heaven. I imagine that's a definition of heaven, or even Utopia if you want to use a non-religious term: a society in which people actually work for each other's benefit, from each according to his ability to each according to his need.

Oddly enough, that last statement was made by a Marxist or a Communist or something and yet it's really a Christian statement. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Now, obviously, we're not there yet. We're not at this ideal situation, because I'm convinced if we were, this bill wouldn't even be necessary. We wouldn't

[ Page 450 ]

need legislation like this at all. In fact, the legislation would be wrong if we had arrived at that point in time. If heaven was here, if benevolence was the law of the land or the law of the world, we would not require this particular piece of legislation.

We are faced with a mixed economy. There are elements of this law of benevolence in practise. I think it's exemplified by much of our legislation and by legislation of other governments that things are done because they're worth doing for people and for no other reason, because we're concerned about people and they're worth doing for people. This is the very essence of the moral law; that we must do things because they are worth doing, because they need to be done for people.

On the other hand, there are things which we recognize are done for purely selfish reasons. So in this sense we have a mixed economy: we have part of our society that's working on a benevolent basis and part of it that's working on a selfish basis. In this selfish part of the economy or our society are adversaries — large forces working; the multi-national corporation whose aim is profit; the large trade union whose aim is to benefit their own membership and not necessarily anyone else; the farmers' organization whose interest and aim is to better the condition of the farmer and not necessarily anybody else.

But as it happens, all of these organizations do benefit other people. There is something of, you might say, benevolence, either accidental or deliberate, in their operations. But nevertheless, they are adversaries in the marketplace, in the selfish part of the economy.

Recognizing this, then, we must bring in legislation. It's the responsibility of government and of the Legislature to bring in legislation to regulate that part of the economy which is not operating according to the benevolent law.

I wish it wasn't necessary. As a Christian, I wish this bill was not necessary. But it is necessary.

The principles, as they're outlined in the statement I read at the beginning, involve certain ideas that are worth looking at. One of them is prevention. It was mentioned the other day by one of the Hon. Members that a doctor is never called into a health matter until a person is sick; the idea of prevention is not really his department. He's trained to deal with sickness, not with the prevention of sickness necessarily, although he may become interested in that part of it by taking public health courses and things like that. But there's so much truth to this.

As a Christian socialist — I'll just drop the word "Christian" and say as a "socialist" — as I understand it, our concern should be for prevention. I'm very happy that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is implementing certain programmes that are going to do just that. They're going to be as equally concerned about prevention as they are about the cure. That's according to the laws of benevolence. We must be concerned with people before they get sick so that they won't get sick.

There are some people who consider any form of preventive measure as a form of meddling, involving yourself in their private business, but I don't consider that meddling if it's done properly. If you are concerned with prevention, say among certain types of diseases among young people, it's not meddling in their lives or in their affairs to try to take measures to prevent illness or sickness. The principle can be justified.

Similarly, in this Act the principle of preventiveness is a very sound principle and necessarily will involve a tribunal or a body given the responsibility of administering this Act. In this case, the Labour Relations Board would be interested and involved in what is happening in the organizations involved in the economy or affected by this Act before something actually goes wrong. It's how they do it that is going to be important.

The second point of the principle that's been mentioned is balance. There are many who feel that only business people can be trusted to make decisions about the economy because, after all, they are trained in business practice, they have business heads and minds, they can understand the principles of economics. Therefore, they should be the ones who make the decisions about economic matters.

On the other hand, there are those in the labour movement who, rightly or wrongly, feel that business has had a go at it for over 100 years, let labour have a go at it now, let them make the economic decisions, let them be trusted to make these kind of decisions.

Well, if it actually came to a crunch between the two I have to admit that I would be prepared to accept that latter course. In other words, if it's a choice between letting business make all the decisions or labour making the decisions, at this point in time I would be prepared to let labour have a go at making these decisions.

However, the aim of this bill is not to do either one of those two.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, no.

MR. DENT: The aim is to have the decisions made in a balanced manner so that there is input from business, there's input from labour, and there is a method made of preserving a balance among the forces involved — at least in the administration of labour-management relations, a critical thing.

This, again, is a very big subject — relating it to the

[ Page 451 ]

overall principle of benevolence I mentioned at the beginning — which one would have really to think about a great deal. But, viewed from my point of view, I feel that all people ultimately can be trusted, providing they are affected by a spirit of goodwill as individuals.

Some Liberal might jump up and say, "Well, that's a definition of a Liberal." Perhaps in that sense maybe the Liberals have a point. I wish they had some other points as well, but at least in matters of being prepared is one good Liberal point.

MR. GARDOM: Charity begins at home.

MR. DENT: It's also true that everybody can be motivated by selfishness and greed, and that is a statement that's justified by the Holy Scripture, not to mention common sense. It's summed up in the words, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." "All have sinned." That's the equalizer, the fact that we are all equally capable of selfishness, greed and guilt, and therefore no one group can make any claim to either being totally motivated by goodwill or totally motivated by greed.

The balance principle recognized this, in my judgment. It recognizes the redemption of man, the fact that people can be properly motivated whether they are involved in business, involved in trade unions, involved in professions, involved in any other organization. I reject the class-worker idea that one class must always be right and the other class must always be wrong.

The third point involved in the principle here is the idea of an adequately empowered tribunal or administering body and the terms of reference that are given to this body in terms of its duties. This is going to be a subject for much debate, I am sure, especially when we get into section-by-section debate. I am not totally satisfied that every power given to the board should be given to the board, or the way it's set up. I'm going to be studying this a great deal, and perhaps in committee I might even object to some of the sections in the committee.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, no.

MR. RICHTER: Not likely.

MR. DENT: But I may not too; I may be satisfied with them all. Certainly they are worthy of a considerable amount of study as to powers this administering body of this Act is going to operate, and what they are actually going to do. But the need for one, to me, is unquestionable.

The principle, I believe, is designed to say that it's necessary to have such a body to adequately administer this kind of legislation because of the very complex nature of our society, because of the very large forces involved in the whole process in our society.

However, they almost have to come straight down from heaven and to be sinless to do the job properly. I suggested it.

It's going to be extremely difficult for these people on this board. I daresay any combination of people would be unsatisfactory in some way and it remains to be seen whether the choices made are wise choices. But the principle is that this body come into being and that they have the responsibility of trying to administer this Act. That I support.

There is a third principle, and that is the protection of individual rights. This is a very tricky business in this modern day and age because every organization has a certain position power-wise and so on in society, whether it's big companies or the professions or big business or the farmers, the teachers, or whichever group. I've belonged to two or three of them and they are all very jealous of their power and their position. They naturally don't want anything done that will weaken their position for compromises in relation to the other groups in the marketplace of the economy.

Since we are not at this ideal point of being motivated by benevolence and goodwill, then every institution must fight for itself because nobody else will. That's really what it comes down to.

I believe that it's the responsibility of the labour movement to fight for its rights in case these powers may be reduced or eroded to a point where they can no longer effectively perform their job on behalf of their membership. I believe it's also the responsibility of other institutions serving their membership to act likewise. It's going to happen anyway so we might as well recognize that that's the way it is. But they will, in fact, be fighting for their position because that position is important in terms of what they can deliver to their membership, and, as they see it, to society as a whole.

Over the next few weeks we are going to be listening to a great deal of comment from these organizations and I think we should listen carefully to every word they say.

I do not wish to be a party to anything that's going to put into the hands of management more power which may reduce the strength of organized workers in this province. I believe organized workers in the groups are too weak. I think if we gave a weapon to management then I would have to take a second look at it. It's just not the case. It's been said that labour is too strong. That's nonsense.

The closer I work with the labour groups in the province, the more I realize they are fighting an uphill battle against a very strongly entrenched and very powerful group. Therefore, I would not be in favour of handing them a weapon. But I don't believe that this bill does this. If it can be shown to me that it

[ Page 452 ]

does, then I'm going to be looking at it very carefully. But individual rights in a struggle among the groups is going to be difficult to protect in that kind of situation. Where each group is trying to get one inch higher than the other, individuals get lost in the shuffle and they lose out.

But there is a matter, in my judgment, of bona fide religious, conscientious objection. I think the classic case in history was the case of St. Peter. Peter, one of the Apostles or disciples of Christ, when he was arrested by the Sanhedrin shortly after the crucifixion of Christ, shortly after the Ascension, was told that he was not to preach in the name of Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem. This was the ruling body of the day. This was the law of the land if you like, and he was informed that he was not to preach in the name of Jesus. So he promptly went out in the street and broke the law; he preached in the name of Jesus.

He was hauled back in before the ruling body once again, and he was asked, "Why did you do this? Why did you deliberately disobey our commands?"

He said, "Should I obey God or should I obey man?"

A euphemism could be, "Should I obey my conscience or should I obey a human body if I think they are wrong?"

There are labour leaders whom I know personally today, who, on matters of conscience, have gone to jail because they believed that the matter for which they were fighting was that kind of a case. Like St. Peter, they stood firm on their consciences. These are men who can sleep at nights because they've got clear conscience; they stood on what they really believed in.

On the other hand, there are others who have gone to jail for quite different reasons on matters of conscience: Jehovah's Witnesses have gone to jail or to the concentration camps — Mormons. I could name every religious group on the spectrum practically, and every other — even non-religious groups, atheists that have been persecuted because they were atheists — on the matter of conscience.

But what individual right comes down to is a recognition that it is possible for a society to exist and follow the will of the majority or of larger groups, but still make provision somehow for individual matters of conscience — and accept that.

On that basis I support that particular section, or this principle in this bill, and everywhere else it appears in terms of the labour ombudsman, and so on.

However, I would point out that it is not only a matter of religious conscience to opt out of membership in a trade union. It may be a matter of religious conscience by some Christians to require everybody to belong to a union. Now you might say, "Well, why would that be?" Well, in a case where the large institutions which I have mentioned already are muscling each other, and each one is trying to get one inch above the other group and get a little bit more strength so that they can put the other side down, or win a fight, then if a person opts out of the process on a matter of conscience, it could well be that this process could result in the erosion of the strength of one side and result in the victory of the other side.

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense, nonsense.

MR. DENT: I say that that's a possibility because I know of at least one situation where to some degree this is being attempted, where individuals are being replaced as they leave by people who, you might say, think differently. In some cases some pressure is being applied to encourage people to leave the place of employment so that others may be hired who have a different point of view.

So this whole thing of matter of conscience can be abused, and I can understand labour people actually defending this on a matter of conscience — the requirement that people belong to a trade union.

History has shown that this fight, this whole matter of fighting for the rights of workers, for the well-being of workers, is a very tough row to hoe and an uphill battle and, in order to win this uphill battle, sometimes it is necessary to compromise individual rights to a certain extent in order to gain a greater good.

However, I have to ask myself this question again. In terms of the other principle, the other point of the principle, the balance of forces: would having this religious conscience clause result in any change in the balance? Well, under certain conditions it would; therefore, when we come to consider the bill point by point, then we could discuss those.

But as the section is now, in terms of this principle as it is now drafted, I would support it as being consistent with the principles of the bill — this religious conscience section as it is now drafted. I do not think it constitutes any threat or danger to the trade union movement, in my judgment. However, if they can show me otherwise, I will be prepared to take a second look at it. But I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in it to prevent that from happening.

We have to come back to my original point: while much of our economy and society is motivated by benevolence, a great deal of it is motivated by greed and selfishness. Every side is fighting tooth and nail to get more of the money for themselves and more of the power for themselves. In that massive power struggle — the giants of the big corporations, the professions, that trade unions and other large groups — anything that will give an inch or give some strength to one part of that section, without also giving equal strength to the other, is wrong, in my judgment, in terms of our legislation.

[ Page 453 ]

But as long as we can show that individual rights can be defended without interfering with the balance of forces in terms of what people are entitled to get out of our economy, then so be it.

Now I close with one point. There are many, many aspects to this bill, but I just want to sum up with this point: I consider this bill to be an interim measure. I have faith that as we keep saying in the Lord's Prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," maybe if we apply ourselves…. I realize everybody dies off and we are replaced by new people that are selfish and so on. But if we really pray and if we really work and if there is real progress that takes place, then we will get closer to that beautiful day when our society and our economy is motivated by the highest principles and the highest morals of benevolence.

Then this Act will be unnecessary. In the meanwhile, I consider it to be a necessary Act, and I consider it to be a good Act.

Thank you.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): I rise to support the principle of this bill with great vigour, because I think it is the finest piece of comprehensive labour legislation I have ever seen.

I have been active in the trade union movement since 1958 — that's 15 years. I joined the first union that I belonged to in 1947. It was the American Federation of Radio Artists, which is now known as AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists). I joined it before television; that's how long ago it was.

The next union I belonged to was the Communication Workers of America. I was a teletype operator for United Airlines. Subsequently I became an airline stewardess for that company and became a member of the Airline Stewards and Stewardesses Association.

We were quite unhappy with some of the things we thought our union was doing or, rather, what we felt they weren't doing, and a group of young women and myself got together and organized our local. We had a paper local in our base before. It only existed on paper. It did not exist in fact. We ran for the offices and we were elected. I served as president of that local and subsequently held executive positions in that union — executive board positions.

Later I became a member of the Office and Technical Employees Union, of which I am a member in good standing today. I have held an executive board position in that union.

So I am very, very familiar with the trade union movement, just about all aspects of it. I have served as grievance chairman; I have served on a system board of adjustment, which is a board that hears grievances, as a union member. So I have had quite some experience in the trade union field.

As you can see from the kinds of unions I have belonged to, they are principally unions that have a majority of women as members. As a result of that, there are features in this bill relating to the organization of women that I find most satisfactory, most helpful — wonderful things that can happen under this legislation.

More and more our economy is going into the service sector. The primary-producing sector of our economy is reducing with regard to the amount of labour required. It is becoming less labour intensive. It lends itself to automation very easily. The secondary sector is also lending itself to increased automation.

The one sector that is growing is the tertiary or service sector, and this is where you find a great many women employed. And this is where you find the greatest amount of exploitation of women workers.

This is why I feel this Act will help so much in organizing women. Now we have seen year after year in my own union, in other unions, in the Sandringham situation, the Shoppers Drug Mart situation and in countless other cases where the employer put every obstacle possible in the way of organizing.

The part I like about this is that it will help to organize women in the service sector. It will help to organize women in offices, in the clerical field. And believe me, down there in the Bentall Building and all those lovely towers in the West End, they are just waiting to be organized — and in the banks in this province, too.

There have been barriers, Mr. Speaker, to organizing women. When you have to get 50 per cent plus one of the people in the bargaining unit to sign a card indicating that they want that union to represent them. That's what it says on paper.

What it actually means is you have to have 65 to 70 per cent. And it's extremely difficult because as the situation exists right now, if the employer gets one breath, one hint that there is an organizing drive going on in his establishment and he finds out who the ringleaders are, out they go. Fast.

MR. CHABOT: Unfairly.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker, they're not discharged for an unfair labour practice. They're discharged because they smoked on the job; they came in two minutes late from lunch; they left one minute before 5 o'clock; they were one minute late getting in in the morning — that's why they're fired.

They have another device that's even more clever. They take your job, divide it up and give it to four other people. They just phase it out and you're laid off because there's no work for you to do. That happened to a personal friend of mine — and she was one of the ringleaders in organizing an office.

[ Page 454 ]

They have all kinds of clever devices. In many cases that I personally know of, we knew that a majority of the women workers in the establishment wanted a union. But they were afraid to put their name on a card for fear that it would fall into the hands of their employer and they would be out the door. And, Mr. Speaker, a lot of these women are not young women; they're over 35; they're over 45; and they are the sole support of their families. They can't afford to be out of work. They can't afford to go on a job market because there are no jobs out there for people of that age, men or women.

So with a 35 per cent requirement for asking for a vote of certification, it makes it so much easier to organize these women, to give them the opportunity to vote on whether they want a union or not. That one point I think is very, very good for women in this Act.

There's been a great deal of talk about arbitration or an enforced contract on the first agreement in the event the employer or the union does not make an agreement after the union is certified.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is wonderful. Because we wouldn't have had Sandringham — in fact I call this the "Sandringham clause" — if we had had this.

Three years those women have been on that picket line, walking that picket line. Even the employer said it was a good contract, he was willing to sign it, but he didn't want to take back the strikers. I'm sorry, that's not good enough.

This way, when you have a requirement that a newly-certified employer must show good faith in bargaining and a union must show good faith in bargaining, the requirement is on them to come up with an agreement. Because they know if they don't come up with one, the Labour Relations Board has the power to impose one. I for one doubt very much if that power will ever be used. It will not be necessary, because both parties know they're going to have to negotiate and they're going to have to come to a first agreement. So I think that is just great, particularly for women units, because this is where it breaks down.

Shoppers Drug Mart was a perfect example, where they kicked that ball back and forth between the courts and on appeal and everything else because Shoppers Drug Mart tried to hide their true ownership. They avoided signing an agreement as long as they possibly could. That is why I feel that usually where women are working for companies that have branches, that have large resources, the companies can hold out on a strike for years, literally years, and break the strike. So on a first agreement to have this kind of requirement, and it is only for a year, will put the onus on both the union and management to get together and sign an agreement that is equitable to both parties.

Another feature I like about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it outlaws discrimination between wage rates for men and women. No longer will we have negotiated rates by unions and management for the same job — one rate for women and another for men. That's specifically forbidden in this Act, and I think that is the best feature of all. There will be no discrimination in wage rates.

Another feature I like about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the ombudsman section. I have run across situations in the trade union movement where, in my view, a union was not treating a member properly, was not servicing the member properly. I have had situations where a member's grievance was not handled by the union. Or if it was, it was done in a very desultory manner and just sort of shoved around and lost under a stack of paper until the time limits in the agreement ran out.

I have seen one particular situation I'm aware of where a women was fired from an establishment, a very good woman. She had been with this company for two years, she has no black mark against her record at all, had never had any criticism — in fact the owner had praised her highly and had promoted her because of her skills. Suddenly she was bounced out the door.

She went to the union and asked the union to file a grievance. They refused.

She subsequently came to me and I checked with the union and I said, "You've got to file a grievance. The person is entitled."

So eventually, very reluctantly, the union filed a grievance and then promptly said, "Well, you've lost it. We lost the grievance for you." We dug into the case a little bit deeper and we found out the problem lay with the manager. The manager wanted her replaced so he could put his girlfriend in that job.

This woman that I'm speaking of was 47 years old. The replacement was 23 and very attractive.

But this woman had been an excellent employee and they had a great deal of difficulty coming up with some reason for firing her. They finally got her, I think, for having her back to the cash register while she was on coffee break instead of her face toward the cash register so she could keep an eye on it. And on that basis they fired her.

The union, when the organization to which I belong began to kick up a fuss about it, as much as told her: "You are now blacklisted throughout the industry. No matter where you try to work in this line of work, we will make sure that you don't work." Mr. Speaker, because we had kicked up a fuss, a group of women had kicked up a fuss about this particular case, this woman was being hurt.

Now there is an avenue for a person in those circumstances to seek redress through the ombudsman, to go to the ombudsman and say: "My union isn't treating me right. My union isn't processing my grievance."

[ Page 455 ]

He can look into the matter and say, "Well, lady, you don't have a grievance" or, alternately: "Yes you do have a grievance and they have not done right by you. I shall so recommend that they do." That is another wonderful feature I feel about this bill.

As far as this conscience clause situation goes, I find it very strange that anybody would object to the manner in which it is being suggested in this bill. Anybody whose true religious convictions precludes them from joining a union — then by all means, they should not have to. But, in my opinion, when the union is responsible for getting them those wages, those working conditions — a union that has to maintain a staff, a research staff, that has to maintain communications with its members, possibly office facilities and staff — I think it's incumbent upon that employee to help pay part of the freight for the benefits that employee is receiving. I think that's only common sense.

We have people in this country who pay taxes, who obey traffic laws, who obey all the laws, but it is against their conscience to vote and they do not vote; and that's their right: not to vote. But they obey the laws and they pay their taxes, which is properly what they should do. So I am afraid I cannot shed too many tears over either side of the issue on the conscience clause. I think the manner in which it is dealt with in this Act is first rate.

There's another thing I like. As you know, I have had some experience in American unions. One feature there that was very good, and I see it here, is the good faith bargaining. People come in to bargain in good faith and not squabble around, such as the owner of Sandringham did. They really come in to bargain in good faith. I appreciate that good faith bargaining can be open to many interpretations, but I think that over a period of time this board will develop a policy that will be clear to all parties of precisely what good faith bargaining stands for.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) wanted us to just stop everything and consult: "Let's have some consultation with the B.C. Federation of Labour and the B.C. Employers Council." Well, I would like to know what the Hon. Minister (Hon. Mr. King) and his advisers have been doing for the past eight months if they haven't been consulting with these people and consulting extensively with them. I believe Mr. Haynes, just this morning, admitted on CBC that he had had conversations with the Hon. Minister. So I don't know what his problem is there.

I would like to point out that in other matters, when the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was dealing with Acts relating to veterinary practice, we didn't have to stop everything to ask the veterinarians if they approved of the Act. I would like to remind the Members that we were elected to make these decisions and to make them in this House.

That's the whole point.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned before and I say it again: this is the finest piece…and I have been very deeply involved in the labour movement. I've had to work with the Landrum-Griffin Act; I've had to work with the Taft-Hartley Act; I've had to work with a large body of American labour law, a large body of Canadian labour law, both federal and provincial. So I know a little bit about some labour law.

This is the best legislation I have ever seen m any jurisdiction in North America.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): I don't have all of my notes as well organized as I would like to have.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: It was my expectation — and I don't mind saying this out loud — that I would probably be on my feet come Monday or Tuesday.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: The reason that hasn't happened, Mr. Speaker, is that the opposition Members haven't had very much to say on this bill. I find that very disturbing.

We have had in British Columbia for years a very bad situation in labour relations. Much of the tension, many of the difficulties, have been directly caused by previous legislation that was introduced by and large in the last 15 years by the official opposition party, Social Credit. Those laws have created and have led to aggravated relationships between employers and employees.

Our party and this government have for years examined very, very carefully the kind of procedures that should be implemented to alleviate some of those tensions in order to create a more harmonious relationship between labour and management in our community. It is my belief that Bill 11 is a good — a very good — attempt to remedy these problems.

There are countless sections and countless attitudes expressed in this bill that are very, very good indeed. I would like, in general, to talk about some of those good things and then, Mr. Speaker, following that, I would like to make a few suggestions as to things I think could make the bill an even better labour Act for British Columbia.

[ Page 456 ]

One of the very important things the bill does is to remove the matter of labour-management relations out of the courts; and that can't be anything but good in labour relations.

One of the sections, and I suppose we aren't allowed…although I noticed other Members were doing it. I didn't think we were allowed to refer to specific sections or to specific items. But if you, Mr. Speaker, have allowed it so far this afternoon, I would like some leeway in that regard, if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: I did it in absentia.

MR. GABELMANN: There are, as I say, a number of things that are very good and very helpful, both to improving the situation in terms of the relationship between employer and employee and also in terms of allowing more and more people to belong to trade unions. In that respect, section 8, that refers to unfair labour practices, is greatly improved by the final clause which says that the onus of proof rests with the employer. That was an absolutely essential amendment and I am pleased to see that it is in.

There has been discussion about the question of closed shop and the question of opting out. My reading of the bill indicates to me — and I suppose it will be tested in the courts, or perhaps it will be proven to me even before that that my conclusions are wrong — but my reading of the bill indicates that section 9 contradicts section 11.

I am not really sure whether closed shops are, in fact, made mandatory in this bill or not, because in one section, without referring specifically to it, it says that nothing shall stop two parties from inserting a closed-shop agreement in their contract, and then another section says that people can opt out of that arrangement. That is a question which perhaps is going to have to be dealt with, hopefully by amendment or, if not, certainly I expect that it will end up in the courts.

The section that moves the headquarters of the Labour Relations Board to Vancouver is long overdue. All of the major decisions between labour and management, all of the major negotiations, in fact, occur on the lower mainland of British Columbia, and that was a good idea. The removal of the possibility of ex parte injunctions also is a very good suggestion.

The clause that eliminates the problems we have had so often in dealing with the corporate veil, in section 37, I think will eliminate the kinds of problems where the employer can confuse the issue, as he did in the Shoppers Drug Mart case, and as has happened time and time again in labour-management relationships.

The section that allows supervisors to be included in the bargaining unit — again I think that's a very good thing.

Those are just a few of the things that I find indeed admirable — the thrusts and directions in this bill. And I find overall, Mr. Speaker, that the general intent was indeed an attempt to eliminate some of the disruptions that have occurred and, in fact, to encourage the organizing of the unorganized.

Mr. Speaker, I would like in committee stage to refer to a great many other issues, some of which I think are very good, others of which I have some doubts about. But in this debate on principle I would like to raise six items that I find are of particular concern to me, in the sense that they are areas in which I feel the bill could in fact be made an even better bill than it is now.

I have looked very carefully at the legislation in other jurisdictions in Canada — the federal jurisdiction and, in particular, the Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan legislation. Occasionally I run across words that I've seen in those labour Acts, particularly the Ontario Act.

The first thing that I must say I find is not as good as I would like it to be — and I would hope that the Minister some time prior to third reading could find a way of introducing some amendments to it — is the first section of the Act that deals with exclusions.

Mr. Speaker, we have in this Act continued the exclusion of farm workers, we have continued the exclusion of domestics and we have continued the refusal to allow the fishermen to be covered by this legislation. I think that that is a mistake. I think the bill could be improved if those exemptions were not included in the Act. That's the first of my six suggestions, Mr. Speaker.

The second relates to organizing the unorganized. Mr. Speaker, one of the sections deals with the determination of appropriate bargaining units. They have very good legislation in Saskatchewan concerning this problem, and I would like to suggest to the House a way in which this question of determination of bargaining units could be improved.

When a union applies for certification, it would be very helpful for their organizing campaign if the Labour Relations Board would provide, as they do in Saskatchewan, the union with a list of the names of the employees and the specific number of employees that are included in the bargaining unit so that the organizing union can be sure of exactly how many people they must sign up and in fact will have the names so that they don't have to gain those names by some devious means or other.

The board, when rejecting an application for certification, should be instructed — and it must be in this legislation, as it is in Saskatchewan and Manitoba — to say to the union: "Your application is not appropriate under that certain group of employees. We think the following would be the appropriate unit." Mr. Speaker, that could be added into section 42 quite readily and it would avoid the problem of

[ Page 457 ]

the union continually having to organize a plant or an area or a group without knowing specifically which group it is that is going to be the appropriate bargaining unit. And that would go a long way, if those two small changes were made to section 42, to helping us to seriously organize the unorganized.

My third area of concern relates to certification of councils of unions. One of the things that I did prior to getting elected to this Legislature was to promote that idea among trade unions. I spent a lot of time arguing with union members and with union leaders that it was in their best interest and in the community's best interest for them to bargain with other unions in the same general area of work, whether it be in the construction industry, in the food industry, at the airport where you have a multitude of unions, or at some university where again there is a multitude of unions and a multitude of certifications.

I think it's very desirable that there be councils of trade unions for bargaining purposes. I believe, however, that that must be a voluntary process. I do not believe that you can force a group to bargain with someone else if they are not prepared to sit down and bargain with those other people, in other words, on the same side of the table.

I appreciate that the legislation is permissive; I appreciate the fact that the board may or not impose that kind of certification. But I would prefer, Mr. Speaker, that that were not in the legislation, because it seems to me that what we must be attempting to do in this legislation is to reduce the incidence of labour unrest and disruption in British Columbia. That section in my view does not serve that end very well.

I've talked before in this House — and this is my fourth point — about the mediation services. I have talked about how they have been horrendous in the past, they have not been given the kind of priority that is essential if there are going to be improved labour-management relations in B.C. And I think it's a very, very key item.

What we've done with these various sections in the legislation relating to mediation services is that we have, in effect, continued the old system by which, when a mediation officer is present in a dispute, whether he's there at the request of the parties or at the request of the Minister, the union cannot go on strike and the employer cannot lock out.

Mr. Speaker, if a mediation officer is going to be successful, he is going to be welcome at that bargaining table. If he's going to be welcome at that bargaining table, there will be no intent of either party to strike or to lock out. What this does is to say to the parties that there is this third force — the Labour Relations Board — that can at any time, just by extending the appointment of a mediation officer, prevent and refuse a strike. Now that, in my view, is designed — unintentionally — but is designed to create even further labour unrest. I am sorry that that provision is in. It doesn't need to be in, because if either party is bargaining in good faith, with the assistance of a mediation officer, they're not going to go on strike. And if they're not bargaining in good faith, the mediation officer may as well not be there sitting in with them at that time.

I think maybe all of those problems can be solved if we make some kind of compromise on that situation. Perhaps we should say that in the first 10 days of an appointment of a mediation officer there is no right to strike. But let's not have any clauses in the bill that say that those appointments can be extended, because there's no limit on that, and then effectively and legally prohibiting any strike action.

So, Mr. Speaker, in a very important sense the mediation services are hampered by this legislation. I think that will lead to a situation that does not lead to improved labour-management relations in British Columbia.

As I said earlier, I've only picked six points that I feel are crucial at this time. My fifth point deals with compulsory arbitration in a first agreement.

I campaigned against compulsory arbitration. I subscribed to the eight-point programme that the NDP campaigned on in last year's election. I cannot accept a provision that in any way allows for compulsory arbitration, even though in this case that compulsory arbitration appears to be in favour of the trade union movement. If I'm to be consistent in my opposition to compulsion, I can't be in favour of compulsion when it benefits trade unions. Mr. Speaker, that kind of consistency is important to me. I made that pledge during my election campaign and during committee stage I intend to make further comments on that particular section.

There are comments about it made in relation to Sandringham. I have all the sympathy in the world for the women at Sandringham, but I think that if they were to have their dispute solved by compulsory arbitration, they would be acting in the worst interests of the community at large. I frankly cannot accept that solution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you voting against it?

MR. GABELMANN: In committee stage, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you voting against this bill?

MR. GABELMANN: I'm voting for this bill in principle because, as I stated in the outset, this bill goes a long, long way to improve labour relations in British Columbia. I said at the outset that there were several items — six, in fact — that I felt could be improved, and I will register those feelings clearly in

[ Page 458 ]

committee stage.

MR. CHABOT: Are you speaking for Ray Haynes?.

MR. GABELMANN: I speak for myself, Mr. Member. Mr. Speaker, if that comment came from a more responsible Member of this House, I would reply to it.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: I think this might be a good opportunity for me to make some comments about that question raised by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Phillips). Mr. Speaker, I am talking about items that I campaigned on in the 1972 election campaign.

AN HON. MEMBER: You had to beat Derril Warren!

MR. GABELMANN: I am talking about items that I participated in when we debated these questions at NDP conventions and, Mr. Speaker, I speak for no one in this House except myself at any time.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'll go elsewhere and make this speech, if you like. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I'm still listening.

MR. GABELMANN: The question, Mr. Speaker, of compulsory arbitration, while it sounds very nice in the Sandringham situation — and I do indeed sympathize with that situation — becomes more complex in situations such as the one that the IWA is involved in in one of their plants or one of the plants they have attempted to organize in the greater Vancouver area. Mr. Speaker, the essential problem in the dispute that they're having is the problem of breaking new ground, and I submit that any labour relations board, when imposing a first agreement, will not break new ground. That's the pattern of imposed solutions and I think that the Labour Relations Board, even were it composed in a majority of trade union representatives, would find it very, very difficult to break new ground in imposing a collective agreement. It's just not possible.

In that event, Mr. Speaker, in the particular dispute that I referred to in Vancouver in which the IWA is involved, the key item in dispute is an item that breaks new ground. And, Mr. Speaker, an imposed solution on that group would not work; an imposed solution on that group would lead to greater industrial conflict.

Mr. Speaker, the case against compulsory arbitration has been made for years, it has been made eloquently by the New Democratic Party, and I stand by those statements made both by my party and by myself in years gone by. I intend, Mr. Speaker, to continue to oppose compulsory arbitration in whatever form, even when it appears to be to the benefit of the working people. Mr. Speaker, I will deal more with that in the committee stage.

The sixth item that I wanted to refer to deals with the very, very complex question of picketing. Mr. Speaker, picketing law in British Columbia over the last few years has not been determined by legislation, it has been determined by the courts. In fact, the intention 12 or 13 years ago of Bill 43 was to virtually eliminate picketing, to eliminate the secondary boycott and to eliminate hot goods declarations. In fact, the courts have ruled time and time again, particularly in the last few years, in ways that have allowed for a much greater use of the picket line than the original legislation or the current legislation provides for.

The legislation introduced by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) in relation to picketing clauses has, I think, some very good features, particularly relating to the question of free speech which we should, in fact, hold as an inalienable right in this society. Fortunately, thank God, we have eliminated that iniquitous legislation that we have had to live with for 10 or 12 years.

But, Mr. Speaker, there are some problems with the picketing legislation, in my view, not from the point of view of some fine philosophy or some fine theory, but from the practical considerations of what kind of industrial peace will result from the legislation. I think that several phrases and several clauses — and again I will deal with them more specifically in committee stage — will unfortunately have the effect of forcing some workers in some situations to violate this law as they have had to violate the previous one. Mr. Speaker, that's unfortunate; we shouldn't be designing a law that will have as one of its inevitable conclusions the forced breaking of a law. The campaign that is currently going on at Super-Valu by a great many groups in our community to encourage consumers not to buy California grapes would, under this legislation, the way I read it, be illegal. Mr. Speaker, that's bad.

Another part of this picketing section quotes directly from the Criminal Code, uses the words "watching and besetting" and says that that is not allowed, or that picketing includes watching and besetting. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that those words are needed in our legislation. They apparently aren't needed in other provinces, and I don't think they're needed in British Columbia.

One of the most important problems is the problem of the complicated kind of disputes that we get into, particularly because we have so many unions

[ Page 459 ]

in this society — incidentally far too many — where one plant or several parts of one plant that are producing perhaps different products might be under different certifications and might be under different collective agreements. They might have different expiry dates. As a result of that, the economic power of the employees in one part of that operation is eliminated by the section in the Act that says picketing is not allowed at a place of operation in which there is a collective agreement in force. Mr. Speaker, in many instances that would destroy IWA dispute after IWA dispute, and there are a great many other workers who face the same kind of problem.

One of the sections as I read it implies that the women who were applying for certification at Denny's restaurants in Vancouver and were unsuccessful in gaining that certification would not have been allowed to picket in front of Denny's to demonstrate their point of view and their concern and their request to consumers not to patronize Denny's. That's another section entirely and I intend again in committee to get into that.

Mr. Speaker, those are my six comments. I'd just like to repeat them because I think the Minister would find it valuable if he did know exactly what those six items were so that he could consider the possibility of amendments in those areas.

The first is the exclusion from collective bargaining of fishermen, farm workers and domestics.

The second is the limitations on unions relating to organizers.

The third is the possibility of forced certification of councils of unions.

The fourth is the inadequate feature of no-strike provisions during mediation attempts, including the possibility of extensions.

The fifth point, Mr. Speaker, is the compulsory feature of the first agreement imposition.

The sixth is the number of problems that I see in the various sections that relate to picketing, I think I'm responding to the words of the Minister, having made those criticisms, when he said in opening the debate on second reading that he did welcome constructive criticism. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that my comments are looked on as being constructive. I trust that they will not be interpreted by anyone as stating the position or staking out an attitude that will lead to the impossibility of this legislation working. I'm not doing that, Mr. Speaker; I'm making suggestions that I feel, as an individual Member of this House, would improve this legislation so that it will be even better than it already is.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should end at that point. I just want to say that there are a great many complex features in the legislation, a great many things that I have missed and a great many solutions to problems that are contained in this Act that I would very much like to discuss. But I have spoken for 30 minutes and I would like to do that kind of presentation during committee stage when there can be some give and take between the Minister and other Members on these questions.

I may well be wrong about some of my points of view — it's happened before. In that event I would like to be able to stand here on this floor and have those kind of things pointed out by the Minister. At the same time I know very clearly of his intention to treat these remarks that I've made as constructive criticism of what basically is a very well-introduced bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Speaking to the principle of this bill, it is obvious that the present administration has a hang-up on appeals. It was first made obvious to us in our debate on Bill 42 and we see it again here.

Now I think that perhaps it could be argued, from the government's point of view, that somebody somewhere eventually has to make the ultimate decision and that perhaps the person best qualified to make that decision would be the person with the most experience in any given field.

However, in the construction of this legislation, they have not provided for any appeal; they have only provided that a chairman of a committee would be that qualified person who would make that ultimate decision that I first mentioned.

I have to agree that the chairman they have selected is well qualified, and I would like to commend the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) for his selection. However, does it not make common sense, Mr. Speaker, that when a confrontation occurs and when a difference of opinion exists, surely we and every person have the right to another opinion, regardless of how qualified the first opinion might have been?

Do we not have the right to be heard again, to have an interpretation of the facts and then, in the interpretation of those facts, have a second opinion? Where has the day gone when every man could have his own day in court? It is obvious that they have a hang-up on the business of appeals.

The chairman whom they have selected to operate the board already will have enough problems without having the responsibility of the ultimate and final decision hanging on his own shoulders. After all, he's already going to have to interpret things like what good faith is. What is good faith?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't you know that?

MR. SCHROEDER: It seems to me that it is going to be left a matter of interpretation from my point of view, but I would like to know, Mr. Premier, what good faith is in your opinion with regards to labour relations? And I don't hear any answer.

[ Page 460 ]

The second point I would like to raise, which also came up in the discussion of the previous bill that caused much concern across the province, is: how much power can be given, or should be given, to any one individual? I don't know whether the rest of the Members, Mr. Speaker, have looked at the bill carefully enough to notice that in section 16 the chairman may establish a panel, and that panel may refer or may have referred to it any question of law, and that panel can make a final and binding decision which is binding not only upon the panel itself, but also upon the board in its entirety.

All right, let's take a look at what kind of panel this binding decision can be made by. If you go back just a few sections, it clearly instructs us as to how a panel of the board shall be constructed. A panel of the board shall consist of — and here is the first category — the chairman or the vice-chairman. Strange, it is a panel of one.

Now that's not the big problem; the big problem is that this panel of one can be and, indeed, I expect it will be in instances — the chairman himself. The chairman himself is going to establish the panel, appoint himself to the panel and then make binding decisions which will not only bind himself but the entire board or any other panel of that board.

That chairman, by the way, has already been named. There will be no appeal to that decision. It will be a final and binding decision. They are asking the chairman to take the cloak of a supreme court judge and make the final and binding decision.

That's just a point in passing and, Mr. Premier, you may laugh; you may talk about my qualifications as regards the interpretation of this, but this is what the bill says — exactly.

The other thing that I would like to refer to is the business of the conscience clause. I've heard various opinions, Mr. Speaker, in the House this afternoon about the validity of the conscience clause, the construction of the conscience clause and whether we should have one at all. But I think that very few people in the House — and I'm wondering about my own qualification in this regard — really have any experience in talking with the individual who claims to have this conscience that requires a conscience clause.

The Minister has clearly indicated that he doesn't understand, because he says we are going to have a conscience clause whereby a man can decide whether or not he wishes to belong to a union. Beautiful. Beautiful. And it can be dictated by his conscience.

But in the very next line of the bill it says, "However" — there is the biggie — "However." In the following "However" it says, "the same dues will be deducted and they will be paid duly" to the same union against which the man has a conscience.

Clap your desks, friends, because you are showing your ignorance. Clap them again if you will, please.

You're showing your ignorance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Twenty years in the House and you never did…. Is this your leadership speech?

MR. SCHROEDER: Who's talking about 20 years ago? We are talking about now. The bill was introduced just a few minutes ago and, by the way, introduced just a very few minutes after it was printed. The ink was still wet on mine when I got it.

Now the man who, by virtue of his conscience, decides that he cannot join a union is asked, in this bill, to contribute to the union. It's like saying…and are you listening, Mr. Premier? It's like saying, "I don't believe in abortion," on one hand, yet on the other hand saying, "I'm willing to pay for somebody to have one." That is precisely what we have here — it's a parallel.

This man says he doesn't want to belong to a union, but he has to pay the deductions, he has at least to stand the deduction and he has to have that amount of money paid to the union.

Now that's the whole issue of the conscience in the first place. If his conscience dictates for him not to be joined to the union, what in the name of common sense would cause us to believe that he should feel any better in his conscience about making a contribution to it. Regardless of what the contribution goes for — and I would agree with the First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Ms. Young) over there who said that the amount of money involved actually is only going to help to pay the freight. Good. Bully, bully, bully. That's got nothing to do with the issue. The issue is the identity with a labour union.

There are people — by the way, I don't happen to be one of them — whose conscience is delicate in this regard and whose opinions and whose conscience we need to respect. They are a minority, to be sure. I don't know if we have one of them represented in this House, but we need to respect their individual rights just like we expect them to have regard for our individual rights.

I would say, in the light of the fact that I don't think that the Minister has had enough time in the preparation of his bill, that in order to create a panel of one and to give that panel of one of the power to not only name the limits of his own jurisdiction, but also the extent and expansion of his jurisdiction, to say that that panel of one is to make a decision for which there can be no appeal, I think the Minister has not had enough time to prepare the bill properly.

There are some of the "t"s that are not crossed; there are some of the "i"s that are not dotted. I say, give the Minister just a little more time. I know he will respect me for giving him this time, and I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of

[ Page 461 ]

the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In the meantime, since the motion was put earlier by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the Clerks and I have been doing some assiduous study of standing order 34 and standing order 44, and I wish to give some advice on the question of any intermediate proceedings taking place between motions.

Of course, in Beauchesne the question of intermediate proceedings is defined. It is something that takes place that is recorded in the Journals for the day. And two Members speaking, one after another, is not an intermediate proceeding because it is not recorded in the Journals. The result of that leads to the conundrum of how you can place a motion to adjourn the debate, once it has been made in that afternoon session, without an intermediate proceeding.

So therefore, I must refuse to accept the motion as being in order at this time. I must call on somebody else to speak.

I might add, standing order 44 also says that where it is the opinion of the Speaker that a motion for the adjournment of the debate is an abuse of the rules of privileges, the Speaker should not, in that circumstance, put the motion. We have had two motions already this afternoon, and I would not wish to put the motion now unless the House is prepared to adjourn for the day.

May I say to the Hon. Member who is speaking, in view of that circumstance, I would not want him to feel that he is debarred from continuing his speech. If you wish to continue, by all means; I am sure the House will agree.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like, on a point of order, to draw to your attention, Sir, that you are creating a worse dilemma with a decision of this kind than the dilemma which you posed to the House. That dilemma being that at the time of adjournment, when a person will adjourn this debate to the next sitting, that's not an adjournment of the House. Theoretically, if you followed through with your own argument, even at 6 o'clock you cannot accept an adjournment of this debate because it isn't an adjournment of the House.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, you will recall many, many occasions, when the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Hon. Mr. Dowding) sat on this side of the House, that the accepted practice of the Legislature was that as soon as another individual had spoken, this constituted a transferation of business.

I can remember 30 or more moves to adjourn in a single night. Indeed, the Premier who says, "Oh, no," once moved adjournment of the House more than all the Members put together.

MR. SPEAKER: But, Hon. Member, that was when I was a poacher and not a gamekeeper. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, I only tell you that before such a ruling is made, which would have to be challenged in this House on the grounds of common sense, that I would appeal to the Clerks and yourself to write to other jurisdictions and put to them the dilemma that you….

MR. SPEAKER: We have been considering this dilemma of our rules, because, you see, in standing order 31 it says: "All orders not disposed of at adjournment of the House shall be postponed until the next sitting-day, without motion to that effect." You have that in opposition to standing order 34.

In the circumstances, I want to give the utmost consideration to what is said to the House. In the meantime, I am sure you will realize that we have not in the past accepted motions to adjourn one after the other in this House.

There is another traditional device which was used in a previous time, as the Hon. Member will recall, and that was to move…. No, I had better not tell them.

AN HON. MEMBER: I remember it clearly, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: There was a device to move another proceeding.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, I wish to also mention that a Member from the other side of the House did speak between these two motions.

MR. SPEAKER: But that still doesn't amount to a…Beauchesne says, in effect, that that does not amount to an intermediate proceeding. The fact that one Member speaks after another does not constitute an intermediate proceeding, Consequently, as you can see, the poor Speaker has a job resolving this problem. I hope you will give me time to give consideration to it with my Clerk. If anyone has any suggestions I would most appreciate them.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, while you are going to consult this matter, I am wondering, for the sake of fair play, if you will consider accepting the motion of adjournment that was put by the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). Because you haven't yet brought down your decision, your decision might reconsider what you have stated; that there has been no intervening business and you might conclude that, in the sake of interpretation of section 34 of the standing orders, that a motion might be in order.

[ Page 462 ]

We are in a very difficult position, I think. If you are not going to allow or accept a motion of adjournment from the Member for Chilliwack, I can't really in good conscience see how you can possibly accept the motion of adjournment from the House Leader…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: …when the time comes at 6 o'clock tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point or order….

MR. CHABOT: There should be no favouritism, really, on this very critical matter.

HON. MR. BARRETT: With a view to clarifying this point, I think the best course is to accept the Member's motion. I would support his motion to allow the Speaker to give us some ruling so that we don't get caught up in the wrangling and get on with the House business.

MR. SPEAKER: If I accept the motion I do so without prejudice to the consideration of the question. I will, under those circumstances, accept the motion at this time to adjourn made by the Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Talking of prejudicing your position, really, you have already done that if you read section 34.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. CHABOT: He certainly has.

MR. DENT: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I believe that standing order 34 is quite clear in saying that there must be an intervening proceeding. Mind you, what the House agrees to do in regard to allowing the thing is another matter. I just want to make a point though. It is important.

A question was raised as to what you do when we come to the hour of 6 o'clock. According to standing orders, the motion couldn't be put.

But there are two remedies: one is, by agreement of the House the motion can be put; and the second one is that the Speaker's attention can be drawn to the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand that is the situation. What we are really concerned with at this moment is whether two motions to adjourn can follow one after the other with two speakers. At this moment, because of the attitude of the House on the question, and since it is understood it is without prejudice to the rules, I will accept the motion to adjourn as if motion to put to the House. I so put the motion to the House.

The question is that the debate on this question, Bill 11, be adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, may I advise the House. I said that copies of the task force report were available; about 30 or 40 are available so we will be short some for a few days.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could inquire from the Premier as to what the order of business will be tomorrow.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker. In honour of the Member for Chilliwack's desire for adjournment until tomorrow, we will continue on his adjournment tomorrow.

MR. PHILLIPS: Could I ask the Premier what his intentions are with regard to the festivities that are coming up Monday? Are we going to sit on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or what?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is my understanding that all of us have a great deal to be thankful for, and as a result, we should take Monday to be thankful and we will come back Tuesday of next week.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.